First, sorry for hitting the send button accidentally; I re-transmitted Sascha's entire post needlessly.
Second, I just did a Google search for "moral relativism" and the first hit was www.moralrelativism.com which says:
<< Moral Relativism is the theory that morality, or standards of right and wrong, are culturally based and therefore become a matter of individual choice. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it."
Moral Relativism has gradually become the prevailing moral philosophy of western society, a culture once governed largely by the Judeo-Christian concept of morality. While those early standards continue to form the basis for civil law, people by and large are embracing the notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are to be decided by the individual and can change from one situation or circumstance to the next. Essentially, moral relativism says that anything goes, because life is ultimately without meaning. >>
Note: * "Moral Relativism has gradually become the prevailing moral philosophy of western society" * "...right and wrong are not absolute values, but are to be decided by the individual"
Jimbo and Larry's NPOV policy does not say that right and wrong are to be decided by the individual. It says (and this is a crucial distinction) that when matters of fact are in dispute, the Wikipedia won't endorse one side as correct. It also says that Wikipedia won't endorse one philosophical or religious viewpoint as correct. Same with moral or ethical judgments.
Wikipedia doesn't say whether there is or is not an absolute standard. It is even neutral on that! The NPOV is not an endorsement of moral relativism, nor a condemnation of it. It's a policy decision not to /assert/ any conclusions, but it never says that such conclusions are impossible to draw.
Ed Poor