How do critics compare disagreement about ethics with disagreement about the causes of disease?

Critics of ethical relativism argue that disagreement about ethics does not necessarily imply the absence of objective truth, drawing a parallel to scientific inquiry. They point out that people often disagree on the causes of disease—for instance, some may attribute illness to evil spirits while others identify microbes as the cause—yet we do not conclude from this disagreement that disease lacks a real, objective cause.1

By this analogy, critics suggest that moral disagreement might simply indicate that some individuals or societies are more enlightened than others, rather than proving that no objective moral truths exist. This perspective challenges the relativist claim that the existence of varying moral codes across cultures necessitates the rejection of universal moral standards.1