Whats your take & understanding of the phrase "Moral Relativism"?

Question:I ask that you elucidate the term for me in a way that will allow me to understand the term when spoken by scholars and laymen alike. The reason I added this last part is because I suspect it may be a term which is often misunderstood for something else, although I may be mistaken. TX

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I ask that you elucidate the term for me in a way that will allow me to understand the term when spoken by scholars and laymen alike. The reason I added this last part is because I suspect it may be a term which is often misunderstood for something else, although I may be mistaken. TX

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relat...

there is no "right" and "wrong" set in stone, it's all relative

EDIT: Please, someone tell me they got the irony of Simon calling moral relativism good? Cracks me up...

EDIT: No, according to moral relativism, what Hitler did was neither right nor wrong, nice try though.

the belief of what is right and what is wrong is relative to the person translating the situation. It all depends on the person and the situation.

Thats what it sounds like its saying.

Grace is pretty much right, except it's not really THAT subjective. It's generally relative to a specific culture.....

It is good because it rejects moral snobbery inherent in countries like America, or faiths like Christianity who think that anything that they think is wrong IS wrong.

It's bad when it runs into concerns like Female Circumcision. It seems clearly wrong to a westerner, but right to those who practice it. Is it okay for us to intervene? Not for a moral relativist.....

.... One solution is to say "I don't believe it is absolutely wrong, nor are you wrong to do it. But I have a personal objection to it which is valid"

"Moral Relativism" is a flavor-of-the-day notion of how we ought to live. The crux of it is the following: "______-ing is "right for me." Therefore, my _______-ing is a moral act." As long as an individual can act or choose in any way that s/he finds acceptable, it is morally right (whether or not anyone else agrees). A moral relativist believes that morality is subjective; that there is no single, objective code of morality that applies to everyone, regardless of creed, culture, religion, etc.

According to moral relativism, if Hitler had no guilt about genocide, then he was morally right.

To me, it means equating two wrongs as equally wrong, without regard to the degree of wrongness. This is practiced by political idealogues to a high degree as a form of damage control. The most recent good example is the left needing to lessen the damage to Obama by his association of twenty years with a pastor that spews racial hatred and hatred of country from the pulpit. The pro-Obama media trotted out the fact that McCain was endorsed by a couple of preachers on the right of the political spectrum that have made controversial remarks, claiming that the two situations cancel each other out. This is moral relativism taken to a new low. A man you've been friends with for 20 years, that you call your 'spiritual adviser', is equivalent to a couple of religious figures you have no association with other than that they came out and gave you their political support? I don't think so.

Morality is realitive to: social, cultural, historical, personal prefrence and/or circumstance.
Moral realitivism is the philosophical position - which denys objective truth in morality. All philosophical positions (some will disagree.) on morality"meta-ethics" falls under three catogories : 1.Conventialism 2.Skepticism. 3. Realism
(The folIowing will help you understand why realitivism is misunderstood)

Moral realititivism is a conventialist theory. To understand what makes a particular philosophical position realist, conventialist, or skepticist - we have to ask TWO questions.

Questions
1. Are there moral truths
2. Is morality brought into existence by someones say-so. Or does someones say-so make ethical truths true?

Subjectivism "Skepticism"
1. No
2. No

Moral realitivism "Conventialist theory"
1. Yes
2. Yes

Realism
1. Yes
2. No

{Fun Fact} The theological belief that right is right and wrong is wrong because of God says-so is a conventialist theory. That religious belief is similar to someone who says, "Right and wrong is what I say it is". Theist that believe wrong is wrong because of Gods say-so (10 commandents) unknowingly deny that theres anything inherently wrong with murder. This is akin to realitivist that say Gods say so soceity says so does the trick. In both instances, ethical statements are made true by someones say so.(4 more on this email me..too long)

The difference between the realitivist and skepticist answer to number (1) puts realitivism and skepticism in different schools of thought. If you ever hear someone say "Realitivist don't believe in good or evil," -they think moral realitivism boils down to skepticism.

Moral realitivist believe that there are ethical truths - this is far different than subjectivism which denys ethical statements. The belief that ethical statements are made true (realitve-to) by someones say-so "its only good because I think it is" is not one and the same thing as denying morality outright. To understand why realitivism is not reducible to skepticism we have to ask moral questions and see how it applies to each school of thought.

Q. Is torturing babies for fun wrong?
Q. Was Hitler an evil human being?
Q. Is it wrong for a child to kill their parents?

Realitivist "Kind that belives societial rules dictate morality" Answer
A.Yes A. Yes A. Yes

Subjectivist Answer
A.No A. No A. No

Subjectivist deny that murder, child molestation, rape, etc. is wrong. A social moral realitivist would regard these as abhorrent acts of evil. The realitivist claim that mass genocide is wrong because society says-so, is a position that still regards murder as an evil act. The difference between all conventist theories, is whose say so does the trick.

p.s. Realism (realist) believe that murder, rape, molestation, etc. is wrong because these acts are inherently evil "objective truth" They deny that any persons say-so (even) Gods brings ethical statements into existence. Whats right is right and whats wrong is wrong.

Edit: After reading the other answerers replys I felt compelled to add one thing.
A proposition is not false because of its origion. This is called the "Genetic Fallacy" genetic meaning origion, cause, catalyst etc.

i.e. Moral realitivist think that morality is realitive. Whats right and wrong is each persons say so. This means they dont believe in right or wrong. (This is the underlying core/central concept of some of the answers above)

Genetic Fallacy - Aside from the fact that the above statements (Or reasons) are mutually exclusive (Right and wrong exists, theres no right and wrong); you're guilty of a fallacy in reasoning.
Where morality comes from is irrelavant to the question, are there ethical truths. You can neither logically nor rationally defend such a argument.

Likewise - Just because you're guility of commiting a logical fallacy, this does not mean you're wrong. If I made this claim I would be guilty of the fallacy as well, "You're wrong because you're argument comes from a fallacy in reasoning"
p.s. Whether humans have knowledge (truth or falsehood) is a matter of epistemology "Theory of knowledge." Although there are different theories the above fallacy can never be logically justified.
i.e. Even if I believe there is no truth, or that everyone has knowledge, etc.