How do relative ethics compare to universal ethical standards? Should ethics ever be relative? Provide a rationale for your response.
No.
Make ethical decisions
No there isn't
It depends on the society in which you live. Ethics are not a universal concept but driven socially. What may be ethical in one place may be totally unacceptable elsewhere.
manga and asceticism and textual ethics and universal theory and trans-historical
Universal ethics should be practised and taught in schools. To this extent, Christian ethics will be practised and taught in schools, as will Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and even secular ethics - they all mean the same thing. But Christian teachings belong in Christian institutions and Scripture classes.
Universalism refers to religious, philosophical and theological concepts that deal with universal applicability. Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics of the proper course of action.
Religion was one of the main human society sectors that revolutionized the idea of 'ethics'. Religion tells you to be a good person, to love your enemies, to help those who need help. The notion of 'ethics' may be a universal idea lying in every human, but religion is what helped it come to life.
Emmanuel Kant ''Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature.''
Ethics is dependant on which tribe or group you are a member of. Few are universal. Education would reflect those ethics. To teach the truth as seen by your group. To explain how your society works. These are types of ethical issues taught.
Ethics are subjective, not universal, so the idea that they are "declining" rather than changing, is overly simplistic and severely limited by one's frame of reference. A better question may be "How is the concept of social ethics changing in modern society?" even then room for answer and discussion is far to vast for any modern forum.