I was reading the New Yorker the other day and found an article by a guy named Hendrik Hertzberg and one of his comments on rush and some of his collegues that said…
“he has now joined another elite crops–the Vice Versa Virtuecrats, they might be called–whose members crusade against “moral relativism” and in favor of absolute standards of right and wrong and wrong backed up by draconian punishments while indulging themselves in devilment on the side.”
I guess my main question is what’s the difference between “moral raltivism” and absolute standards of right and wrong? May be I am just missing the point, can anyone help me out.
“Moral relativism” means each person decides for himself (or herself) what is “right” or “wrong” in each circumstance. Thus for a given circumstance, you may judge it as “right,” I may judge it as “wrong,” and we would both be right. “Right and wrong” is subjective.
“Absolutism” means there is absolute right and wrong, regardless of a person’s opinions, thoughts, or feelings.
In most cultures, both philosophies are in play at the same time.
Nice post Crafter_Man. Here’s a nitpick and a footnote:
First, the niptick is that I like your definition of absolutism, but I would just define moral relativism in the negative as any belief that there is not an absolute right and an absolute wrong. In other words, there are more ways to be a moral relativist than the way in which you state.
Second, the footnote is that “moral relativism” is generally a word used by “absolutists,” and they mean it as a bad thing. That is, most moral relativists don’t self-identify as “moral relativists” per se.