Some people may strongly agree with the statement because when it comes to relativism there is no truth or knowledge in anything beyond the way it seems. For instance there is no objective knowledge, because all knowledge depends on perceptions of the person and there is no objective truth as truth is only true for you or true for me. Basically a right answer or no real evaluation can ever be found of practices such as the burning of witches, human sacrifice, slavery and the holocaust by using relativist views.
Many people will also agree with the statement because they feel that it does not allow societies to progress and view it as a hindrance. For instance moral relativism means that there is no reason for people to behave morally as different people’s views of moral behaviour may differ and the right behaviour may not necessarily be socially accepted.
They may also disagree with moral relativism simply because some statements are just always true and there is no “if or but” about it. For example they feel that how can people question that “it is wrong to torture innocent children” or that “it is wrong to kill innocent people”.
However others may disagree with the statement because they feel that relativism leads to a better understanding of other cultures. They feel that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves and you can decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it."
They may also feel that moral relativism can be justified because essentially, moral relativism says that anything goes, because life is ultimately without meaning. Words like "ought" and "should" are rendered meaningless. In this way, moral relativism makes the claim that it is morally neutral.