Final answer:
The absence of a universal moral code and the idea that each society's moral code is correct within its own context is described by the term 'relativism'. Descriptive ethical relativism acknowledges the variance in morals across cultures, while normative ethical relativism refers to the lack of universal moral standards and the local validity of a society's moral norms.
Step-by-step explanation:
The term that describes the absence of a universal moral code, with each society's moral code considered correct within that society, is known as relativism. This concept highlights that different societies and cultures develop their own moral codes, influenced by mores, customs, and ethical principles unique to each. This perspective is known as descriptive ethical relativism, which is a well-supported scientific theory gathered through cultural anthropology. Moreover, normative ethical relativism asserts that there are no universally valid moral principles, and moral rightness and wrongness vary from society to society.
Philosophers have long debated the existence of a universally valid moral code. Some argue for moral absolutism, while many accept relativism when absolutism seems untenable. Yet, others search for a third alternative that accommodates both perspectives. Moral relativism goes beyond acknowledging multiple moral frameworks to state that each is equally valid within its cultural context, which can sometimes lead to incommensurability.
Despite the prevalence of relativism, debates continue on whether certain practices deemed moral in some cultures may still be inherently immoral—if they fail a universal test of morality. These hotly contested issues underscore the complex interplay between cultural norms and the concept of universal ethics.