Final answer:
The claim that moral judgments are relative to societal factors aligns with Normative Ethical Relativism. However, challenges to this theory arise from the concepts of objective truth and the arguments against the relativity of truth. Ongoing debates highlight the complexity of understanding culture, ethics, and truth.
Step-by-step explanation:
The claim that the 'right or wrong' of a situation is dependent upon the people, time, place, culture, and a range of other factors aligns with the theory of Normative Ethical Relativism. This theory posits that moral standards are not universal, but rather are culturally bound and that the predominant moral view within a society is correct simply because it is predominant. It suggests that what is justified for one community may not hold true for another, thus making truth appear to be relative. However, there are also arguments for objective truth and universal moral standards that transcend cultural boundaries, and these discussions touch on the very nature of truth and knowledge.
Normative Ethical Relativism faces challenges in explaining moral reforms initiated by societal minorities and in reconciling with the concept of fundamental or human rights, which presuppose some idea of objective truth. Additionally, the view that belief in a claim makes it true is contested by the universality of truth in statements and propositions. The idea that truth is not objective and that there can be no absolute or certain knowledge raises numerous debates in philosophy, ethics, and epistemology.
Despite ongoing debates, cultural relativism remains a valued concept in anthropology, though it may now embody a more reflective approach that emphasizes understanding before judgment. This is reflective of 'cultural relativism 2.0', as described by anthropologist Michael Brown.