Morality: Absolutism vs. Relativism

The post title links to another in a series of articles written by Dennis Prager on secularism and Judeo-Christian values. I think these comparative discussions are particularly relevant today as there are strong ideological currents pulling in opposite directions at the collective soul of our society. As the post title indicates, this article examines the distinction between moral relativism and absolutism. However, one of the most interesting points Mr. Prager makes has to do with the distinction between moral relativism and situational ethics. In other words, one may believe in moral absolutes and situational ethics. Here's a portion of the discussion regarding situational ethics.

An act that is wrong is wrong for everyone in the same situation, but almost no act is wrong in every situation. Sexual intercourse in marriage is sacred; when violently coerced, it is rape. Truth telling is usually right, but if, during World War II, Nazis asked you where a Jewish family was hiding, telling them the truth would have been evil. So, too, it is the situation that determines when killing is wrong. That is why the Ten Commandments says "Do not murder," not "Do not kill." Murder is immoral killing, and it is the situation that determines when killing is immoral and therefore murder. Pacifism, the belief that it is wrong to take a life in every situation, is based on the mistaken belief that absolute morality means "in every situation" rather than "for everyone in the same situation." For this reason, it has no basis in Judeo-Christian values, which holds that there is moral killing
(self-defense, defending other innocents, taking the life of a murderer) and immoral killing (intentional murder of an innocent individual, wars of aggression, terrorism, etc.).