I've mentioned the dangers of moral relativism in passing before, and have been trying to formulate some coherent writing on the subject.

And then today, I found this:

A Few Points That Are Not Morally Equivalent
Moral relativism has been around a long time now, and while its inherent hazards as a practical philosophy have been readily apparent, its more esoteric decrees have sometimes seemed more ridiculous than dangerous.

But now, at least in this controversial little corner of the world where I live, relativism's pronouncements are getting harder to laugh off. Especially the accusations of those who believe Israel's decades-long struggle just to exist is morally equivalent to the violence continually waged against it. After all, they can say, violence is violence and a dead civilian doesn't care whether death arrived by suicide bomb or the explosion of an artillery shell taking out a rocket launcher...


...War without consequences, if so allowed, is an immoral invitation to perpetual conflict since there is no reason for anyone to ever give up such a win-win war, other than the eventual obliteration of its target, when a new target must be found. Fortunately, Israel fights back, rather than choosing simply to lay down and die and in the process of surrender convincing Hizballah's world-wide allies that these tactics are worth trying again, and again. It is obvious that by fighting back some Lebanese civilians will suffer. Israel knows and regrets this, yet struggles to minimize these civilian casualties, sometimes even at the risk of its own ground troops. Hizballah knows and celebrates this, placing military assets in the midst of civilians to exacerbate the problem, and making sure photographers are on hand whenever there are bodies to show. These two sides -- one of which regrets civilian death, the other which celebrates it -- are not morally equivalent...

It's an excellent read, and you can find it at AbbaGav.