Final answer:
Relativism suggests that the truth of moral claims is relative to the cultural or individual framework, so an iconoclast could be morally correct within their own context. However, they often challenge predominant views, which under normative ethical relativism, are deemed correct, leading to a nuanced view on the morality of iconoclasm.
Step-by-step explanation:
Relativism posits that moral values are not absolute but are constructed and adaptable based on cultural, societal, or individual contexts. Based on this, an iconoclast, someone who opposes conventional moral wisdom, would not be inherently wrong or right by absolute standards, and their contradiction to societal norms could be seen as morally correct within their own framework of belief or cultural context.
However, normative ethical relativism suggests that predominant cultural views are inherently correct, which in turn means that any minority views, such as those held by iconoclasts, would usually be considered incorrect. Nonetheless, history shows that views once held by minorities can lead to moral progress, arguing against this standpoint. While moral progress is not a guaranteed outcome of iconoclastic actions, relativism allows for the possibility that opposing conventional wisdom is not just mistaken but could be merited in certain contexts.
Considering the broader scope, the interaction between different cultural values and the treatment of those who challenge the status quo is complex, and there isn't a straightforward affirmation of the rectitude or error in iconoclastic positions from a relativistic standpoint.