Final answer:
The position that there are no objective or universally valid moral principles, with all moral views being relative to human opinion, is known as moral relativism. Normative ethical relativism further states that morals are correct within a culture simply because they are predominant, questioning the possibility of moral criticism from minorities. This perspective aligns with the impact of Existentialism and Pragmatism on ethics, emphasizing morality as a social construct.
Step-by-step explanation:
The position that advocates there are no objective or universally valid moral principles because all moral judgments are simply a matter of human opinion is known as moral relativism. Moral relativism is an ethical theory which posits that moral rightness and wrongness of actions vary from society to society and that there are no absolute universal moral standards. According to this view, all thinking about the basic principles of morality is relative, with each culture establishing its own values and principles that serve as the foundation for what is deemed moral.
Normative ethical relativism further states that the predominant moral views within a society are correct simply because they are the predominant views, and it does not allow for the criticism of these views by any minority within the society. This theory is challenged by examples where minority views have led to moral reforms, demonstrating that moral progress often occurs through challenging the status quo.
Notably, the impact of relativism in conjunction with theories of Existentialists and Pragmatists has been significant in the realm of ethics. These schools of thought recognize that in the absence of absolute truths, morality is ultimately a human construct within a social context. Therefore, that morality is shaped by cultural norms and individual or communal perspectives, without universally binding principles.