What exactly does "moral relevancy" mean?

I have a basic idea ive read some Kant, anyone have a link or can explain what exactly it is/means?

That's the view that morals are to be judged by the society in which they reside. That there is no way to properly judge the behavior of a different society or ethical system because none is more right than any other.

An example: A non-muslim cannot claim that muslim rules for women is wrong.

edit: here's one link www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Evil_MoralRelativism.html
Using the proper term you can find plenty more. ;)

I was just about to correct it.

say "woops, maybe you did mean moral relevancy afterall" :) www.trinp.org/MNI/BoI/5/1/4.HTM

I've definitely heard the term moral relativism much more often than moral relevancy. I heard it often concerning the Iraq invasion, usually by a repub talking head who is using the term incorrectly.

I'm not talking about your link, specifically, but I've never thought about it before. Christians are always harping on liberals and moral relevancy and how it's ruined our children. We're thinking relativism and what idiots they are, and they've switched it to moral relevancy.

I remember I was talking to a Professor about my high school and he made a passing comment about it being during the relevant era. Meaning I read current novels instead of classics, etc.

So it looks like they took that word and slapped it on top of relativism and created a new 'doctrine'. Kind of like partial-birth abortion, just make up words that fit their agenda. The moral relevancy doctrine is that liberals teach kids to make up their morals and nothing is right and nothing is wrong.

They take the cultural and sociological intent of relativism and screw it all up.

Does that sound right?

because there is no such thing as right.

"That there is no way to properly judge the behavior of a different society or ethical system because none is more right than any other."

That is what they are learning. I tried to preach co-operation to my college students, and several told me "you can't say that I am wrong." They may not have learned any real history, grammar, or anything past algebra, but they picked up that lesson - "no ethical system is more right than any other."

Thus JR's twisted ethical system is no better than MLK's. Morals are irrelevant.

Teen-agers are manipulators and you must let them get away with it. No ethical system is any more right than any other, when put in context of its time and culture. That is relativism. (Except of course there are some constants through all cultures.)

The culture we live in has a set of values and mores. While the individual can question right and wrong, they also need to question their choice based on the consequences this culture places on breaking those values and mores. That would also be consistent with relativism.

Thinking you can do what you want because you want to is classic teen-age rebellion. Using moral relevancy as an excuse is a load of liberal blaming bullshit.

I confess. I am socially conservative. It is an unfortunate consequence that teenagers are likely to use moral relativism to quiet their consciences. Just like they find Nietzsche as encouragement to crime, and they read that instead of Dostoyevsky, Thoreau, or Fourier.

I was trying to encourage some rebellion and they were all intent on getting management jobs, buying SUVs, big screen TVs, cosmetic surgery, lawn tractors, etc and being so evil that they would actually vote Republican. Those are the values of our sacred American way of life, and according to moral relativism those values are no less right than those of a culture which cares for peace, justice, children, elders, and neighbors.