[ALEXIS_DH]

I assume you are referring to relativism in relation to morality, i.e. moral relativism, no? The greatest danger of moral relativism in my estimation is that it undermines truth. People seek simple rules of thumb to use as tools for comprehending an infinitely complex world. Believing as a guiding principle and accepting as a decision model that there is no such thing as objective veracity places truth and lies in equal regard, e.g. a guy who believes that black and white are but imaginary extrapolated limits in a world shaded gray can rationalize to himself almost any evil deed.

Let me demonstrate-

Stealing is wrong. If I as a thief believe that my actions can only be truly judged from my own perspective, then I could conceivably convince myself that stealing a loaf of bread was not really a bad thing to do; afterall, I needed the bread to feed my hungry child...or the baker is a jerk...or I was overcharged last time at the bakery so this one's for free...etc, etc.

Does that help?

moral relativism works better when applied to societies rather than individuals.

individual moral relativism is good, as long as it is within the borders of the moral of its society. thus the thief should be in jail in the US, but maybe could be an "equality" fighter in Cuba´s revolution, its all relative to the society not the individual (if it was the individual then hallucinations which are definately mental problems, could be right, as long as they are right to the beholder). so for the relativism to be good, it has to work relative to a parameter given or accepted by those individuals who willingly live by it. in that case, great in this case, the moral relativism value of truth is given by those pre-established parameter given by society. in which overall happiness is greater since, people chose what is right or wrong to do.

in the other hand, if you try to push an absolute frame of reference for morals, without any regard of those who are going to live by it, that would be impossing that on people. u may argue that people are imposed laws and stuff, but not, citizens are free to content laws or to move to another state.
if you start by this dictatorial frame of reference, then you are making a bad start, that could be even worse, if you absolute frame ends up being flawed (as in most cases where that had happened). in which overall happiness is less because some people can be offended by others liberties, or might miss some liberties that were not included.

and again i think moral relativism goodness or badness is relative (really?) to the societies themselves. because the 2nd example would cause mayhem in the US for example, if you try to cut peoples choice.
and the 1st example would leave people from fundamentalist countries without the frame of references they are used to, and without things that are sacred to them, thus lessening overall happiness. since the lack of a rigid frame would be missed more than the lack of some liberties.

but to have moral relativism at a society level, within the limits of mankind given laws, like human rights is good.