I find that people who say moral relativism are referring to cultural relativism. Sometimes, however, they may be talking about ethical subjectivism (chapters 2 and 3 of James Rachels' excellent introduction to ethics _The Elements of Moral Philosophy_ provide the best summary I know).
These are philosophical terms often used by religious conservatives to slime the left, especially the academic left (at least in the United States).
Moral relativism has mutated from a neutral descriptive term into a pejorative. (For another example, see "liberal").
I dredged up this 12-year-old thread because, of late, the term is used as a pejorative by skeptics as an example of a failed philosophical stance (and perhaps linked to solipsism and post-modernism).
I often find myself in the position of taking a moral/cultural relativist stance merely because moral absolutism is pressed so hard as a "solved problem." This surprises me on a skeptic forum, were at least some form of solipsism and relativism should always be in the mix - shouldn't it?
We are quick to point out the the power of personal experience: paraidoleia and its cousins, as well as "But I'm sure I saw a ghost." We do it to explain that personal interpretations are often wrong and one cannot convince others without objective evidence. And yet, recognizing this, we abandon it when it comes to moral relativism, which I would argue is an expression of the ultimate inner experience translating personal observations.
In any case, I'd have assumed that skeptics would be quite aware of and appreciate both solipsism and moral relativism as attributes included in the human package, inescapable and unavoidable. So why are they summarily rejected? If it's in the service of clarity, I propose we ought not to reject the foundations of skepticism just to feel cognitive resolution.
It is interesting to see what was written above, a dozen years back, and how the term "moral relativist" has been transformed by atheists and skeptics from its roots in Christian apologetics.
