How to interact with someone that has a different set of morals?

Moral relativism…

There is a whole audience of people, who just by seeing the two words together, has an entire set of premises around the topic. I’m not saying that genocide can be right or that you should move somewhere that fits your moral code. As an exercise, moral relativism is the best way to bridge gaps between opposing/differing moral groups.

What is moral relativism?

More relativism is the judging of morality from a varied standpoint. This means to judge the morality of a person or place by a set of conditional and internal components. Moral relativists argue that things are not simply right and wrong and that what is right to one set of morals may be wrong to another. There are three schools,

Descriptive- There are fundamental differences in moral systems
Meta-ethical- These fundamental differences are the result of condition and we should learn to accept them
Normative- While these differences matter, failing to adhere to one’s own moral code or causing harm can be questioned

Most modern relativists fall into the normative school. The fields of history, psychology, sociology and anthropology all heavily rely on it as well when judging the past or outgroups.

What moral relativism is not?

The first thing moral relativism is not is conditional morality. That there are actions that are right in certain circumstances that are wrong in others. An example would be; “Is it okay to hurt someone who is trying to hurt you”. A relativist examines the morals of the two-people involved. If the two were Jainist monks, then the act is morally compromising. If its two wrestlers getting paid to fight, then there has been no breach in eithers moral code.

Moral relativism isn’t a slippery slope to amoralism. If there is no universal moral code, then anything can become permissible. The genocide is morally correct to those who commit line of thought stems from this argument. The thought process assumes dominant status and focuses on one-sided moral arguments within groups. The argument also ignores the universal tenants of many moral codes such as do no harm. The second is that  

As a mindset what is moral relativism useful for?

Moral relativism is more of a mental exercise in empathy then a finite moral standpoint. Most people that are moral relativists have another set of morals attached to them. Relativism in this sense serves as a bridge between different moral groups. Like moral groupings already practice relativism with ease, it is in extremes that the exercise is useful. (For example: Atheists and Christians, the right and left, or individualist and collectivists.) The reason more people do not practice moral relativism is that it requires understanding and respecting somebody else standpoint as being thought out and logical. If the person you don’t like has a set of morals that are wrong, you can ignore them. If their morals come from a place that is personally thought and practiced, then part of knowing/interacting with that person becomes understanding their morality.