According to the [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/) moral relativism is 'associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of some person or group of persons.' This theory outlines that morality is relative, and groups of people who share similar values often have the same moral viewpoint. An example that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy uses is moral values in Western and non-Western cultures. For example, during the colonial era in Western culture, the predominant viewpoint of Europeans was that their colonial presence was superior, and welcomed by other societies. Therefore, because a large number of people in European culture welcomed colonialism, the question of morality was not really considered, or if it was, was thought to be 'morally right', although today we know that it was not.

**TL;DR: Yes, morality is relative insofar as there is no 'external' moral truth. But morality is also almost universally constant across all cultures.** Oliver Scott Curry's work on [morality around the world](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/701478) demonstrated that there are 7 fundamental moral precepts that repeat in every moral culture they studied. He grouped those as follows: Family, Group, Reciprocity, Heroism, Deference, Fairness and Property You can take his [Morality Quiz](https://www.parlia.com/reports/my-opinion-dna) on Parlia to see how you compare.

If you include religious lunatics then yes. To someone it is moral to rape a 9 year old girl because his prophet also did the same. But if he was to be raped at the age of 9 you wouldn't like it, thus what you are doing is wrong. So moral of the story, don't do anything to others, that you wouldn't want to be done to yourself. And that is what morality is, aka non relative.