Moral Relativism

Right-wingers often accuse Liberals of 'moral relativism', so let's see if there is anything to that. By that term, the accusers seem to mean 'amoral', i. e. 'anything goes'. But, clearly Liberals do not believe that, because they surely believe that right-wing principles do not 'go'. More precisely, 'moral relativism' can mean one of two things--that one person's opinion is as valid as anyone else's, or, that what is best for two different people might not be the same. The most prominent version of the former is known as 'Emotivism', which holds that moral judgments are just like expressions of taste, insofar as they are no more than subjective and personal. Now, Certainty is a feeling, and, therefore, no more than subjective and personal, but since it is right-wingers themselves who claim to possess Moral Certitude, it cannot be Emotivism that they are charging their opposition with. The prototype of the latter is Aristotelian Ethics, which holds that Virtue is moderation in conduct, relative to each person, e. g. what might be courageous action for a stronger man might be wreckless for a smaller one. But right-wingers invoke ancient thinkers like Plato and Aristotle as paradigmatic contrasts with modern Liberalism, so they cannot be referring to that version of 'moral relativism', either, which leaves the words of their accusation empty of meaning. On the other hand, the progenitors of modern Liberalism, Spinoza, Kant, Mill, and Dewey, for example, present Moral notions that are firmly grounded in rational methodology. So, until it is better explained, this criticism of Liberalism seems no more than a piece of empty rhetoric.