I thought that the author brought up a lot of interesting points on moral relativism and I agree with most of his views in the article. I especially liked his ideas on cultural relativism and ethics without morals and I think that there is a similar note contained within the two. He mentioned that ethics differ wildly between cultures and religions, but I'd say that there are still some almost universal ethics that are innate in human nature mostly due to having some degree of empathy for your fellow man. For example, killing an equal for no reason  is almost universally looked down upon. Despite some exceptions ,such as believing that some people aren't your equal or even people due to their ethnicity or religion, killing a random citizen that is your "equal" is frowned upon. Having a feeling a empathy should tell anyone that killing a person for no reason is wrong. I'd say this is due to most people having empathy, but the question then arises do people only have that sense of empathy because of their upbringing through culture and religion. It's almost impossible to tell where basic human emotion and societal teachings mix together and it is arguable that man has no morals when born and only gains them through their upbringing. While I personally disagree with that, it is still a reasonable claim to make. So I thought that the article brought up an interesting point in that it does question whether or not we have our own morals outside of religion and the law and while the author seems to side with there are morals outside of those things, it does seem an interesting point to consider.