I am able to understand that there is a irreconcilable difference between considering morality as an absolute and considering it being relative to individuals and groups.
However, if I take the point of view of a moral relativist, considering that groups and individual hold different valid moral point of views, I can only consider this morality difference to originate from their essential difference, should that be genes or education or experience. So, our morality is essentially tied with our existence and only entirely valid for ourselves.
Unless I'm mistaken, this contradicts the idea that morality can be debated to reach consensus, unless we share the same essence.
Doesn't this mean that ethics are vain, a belief among other beliefs, and morality is non-existent?