Does moral relativism claim that moral statements are descriptive or prescriptive? Anything I read on the topic never seems to make it clear! Surely if it claimed they were descriptive then moral relativism would be nothing more than saying that there is no right and wrong in the sense that we commonly think of it, it actually doesn't matter what we do. But alternatively, how could anyone genuinely believe that moral statements are prescriptive, in such a way that fundamental moral values are dependent on subjective circumstances, e.g. that if I (or my culture) believe murder is right then it is genuinely a good thing for me to do to murder someone?
Basically I can't understand the point of the former interpretation and I don't understand how anyone could possibly believe the latter - so what is moral relativism?