[WikiEN-l] NPOV vs. moral relativism

[Ray Saintonge]

Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>Second, I just did a Google search for "moral relativism" and the first
>hit was www.moralrelativism.com which says:
>
I just followed the link and got moralrelativism.com coming soon!
This page is parked FREE at GoDaddy.com! and a lot of adds for domain names.

It appears that what you meant was www.moral-relativism.com  The hyphen 
makes a big difference. :-)

The site is not a neutral one.  It is maintained by All About GOD 
Ministries, Inc. (GOD capitalized by them.)  One must keep that in mind 
in everything that is read there.

><< 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 may be culturally based OR it may be a matter of 
individual choice.  This does not mean that the latter follows from the 
former.  Such a view is a non-sequitur.  A Confucian morality is 
culturally based, but has nothing to do with individual choice.  The 
idea of "you decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right 
for me," sounds more like an enunciation of a Libertarian ideal than 
moral relativism.

>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"
>
I can accept the first highlighted comment as probably factual in a 
neutral sort of way.  The second one is the same sort of logical 
non-sequitur as in the earlier paragraph. The premise is acceptable bu 
does not necessarily lead to that conclusion.  The last sentence in the 
paragraph is really the existentialist's dilemma.  As Dostoevsky's Grand 
Inquisitor puts it, "Everything is permitted."

>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.
>
That's all fine, but most of the arguments surrounding NPOV are not 
about whether such a philosophy should be accepted, but about whether a 
certain point in a debate falls within the definition of NPOV.  I find 
the support for NPOV among Wikipedians to be very strong.  Our 
definitions of the term tend to be morally relativistic. ;-)

Ec