To be fair, some people used to talk as though they believed something vaguely like this sort of thing. And a past generation of undergraduates found it fairly appealing, though these days moral clarity is all the rage.
I'm a little divided over this one.
On the one hand, I strongly advocate a particular, coherent ethical philosophy, and even try to live by it. Further, I view violations this ethical philosophy as possible grounds for punishment. On the other hand, while I have set objective rules for this ethics I view the decision to use these particular guidelines as entirely subjective. Which is not to say that I don't believe everyone should support them. Of course I do, or I wouldn't think them worth following myself. But what I'm saying is that there is nothing outside of my own values to determine these guidelines as 'right' or 'wrong'. And I would claim the same about any moral or ethical system (i'm an atheist).
I'm a little curious, does this make me a moral relativist or no? I believe in any ethical quandry that eithery side of the argument is bound to be as well grounded as the other, because there is no ground. Nevertheless, I advocate that we (humans) should have ethics, and even morals.
Michael, check out Allen Wood's very good paper on relativism.
Thanks. I'll get to that this evening.