Final answer:
Conventional ethical relativism, as defined by John Ladd, posits that moral principles are relative to specific societies without universal application, but this theory faces critiques for failing to explain the universal trend in certain moral principles.
Step-by-step explanation:
John Ladd from Brown University defines conventional ethical relativism as the view that moral principles and values are relative to particular societies and cultures, lacking universal validity. This form of relativism suggests that each culture defines its own set of ethical rules and that no single set of moral standards is inherently superior to another. The theory posits that morality is socially constructed and varies from culture to culture; hence, what is deemed morally correct in one society may be seen as morally wrong in another.
However, the theory has been criticized for failing to account for moral reforms instigated by minority views within a society and the observable trend of certain moral principles gaining acceptance across different cultures. Critics of normative ethical relativism argue that some moral standards may be universally applicable, citing principles like the right to life as an example of a value that, despite application differences, may be recognized across societies. These observations suggest the existence of universal ethical standards, leading philosophers to consider alternatives to both moral absolutism and cultural relativism.