They may very well both be wrong, but they are different.
Moral relativism is the belief that different groups of people can be required to live according to different moral codes, e.g. OK for some African tribes to be cannibals, but not civilized Westerners.
Moral pluralism is the belief that there may very well be one moral code that applies to everyone, but since no one has been able to convince everyone else of a particular set of moral beliefs then it is best to allow each person to live according to his own moral code within reasonable limits.
The U.S. is very much a morally pluralistic culture, and has been since its founding, e.g. there were various protestant and catholic colonies that disagreed vehemently amongst themselves on various moral issues.
Cultures can become too pluralistic in that they can allow individuals to believe and act in ways that are a direct harm to others, for example allowing the abortion of innocent human life. This is where the U.S. is right now unfortunately.
Moral pluralism in and of itself is not a bad thing, especially since we are all imperfect and do not have access to the complete truth about all things, and certainly do not have the capability of fully comprehending all of the implications of what truths we do know. However, the current form of pluralism we live under has been stretched so thin that we are now in self-destruct mode.
Like I said, new definition same old, same old.
Moral relativity is the concept that one set of moral values is as good as any other, here, there, anywhere. The term has been used for years to justify restorative justice in the court system. You know, “It’s not their fault that they grow up to be gang bangers, drug dealers and murderers, because their ancestors were so oppressed by the Western White Capitalist MEN.” “It’s their culture.”
___________________
Thank you for your explanation of that term. I would have to say that I am always skeptical of moral concepts that seem rather vague, imprecise and/or subject to various interpretations.
Indeed the whole concept seems to be negated by the final “within reasonable limits” clause. That would seem to be a term of art that politicians, lawyers and Marxists (to name a few) could use to justify almost anything!
To agree to do whatever is “reasonable;” w/o a predefined understanding of the scope of that term seems subject to a myriad of interpretations. One thing I learned from the Clinton administration was that words and terms such as, “reasonable” have absolutely no definable meaning or limits when used by the Far Left.
Take care,
-Geoff