[WikiEN-l] NPOV vs. moral relativism

[Poor, Edmund W]

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