Final answer:
Ethical universalism holds that ethical principles are universal and apply to all individuals and cultures, contrasting with Normative Ethical Relativism, which maintains that morals are relative to culture. While relativism suggests each society sets its own moral code, ethical universalism suggests some fundamental ethical principles are universally valid.
Step-by-step explanation:
If one concurs with the school of ethical universalism, then one believes that ethical principles are universal and apply to all individuals and cultures. This contrasts with Normative Ethical Relativism, which posits that moral principles are relative to the culture they derive from, suggesting that moral standards can vary from one society to another.
Normative Ethical Relativism suggests that what's considered moral is dictated by societal norms and customs and opposes the criticism of these norms by any minority, as they are inherently the 'minority view'. However, the existence of moral reforms led by minority views conflicts with this notion. While cultural practices like female infanticide and genital mutilation are condemned universally, suggesting the presence of fundamental ethical principles that transcend cultural boundaries, relativism indicates such principles do not exist or are not binding.
Therefore, ethical universalism argues for core moral standards that are applicable to all human societies regardless of cultural differences, underpinning the belief that there are certain acts that are universally regarded as morally wrong. This recognizes the common human experience and the need for certain moral absolutes, like the basic principle that unjustified killing is wrong.