No. That's why I made the distinction between free will and freedom and then tied it to the idea of phenomenology. Phenomenology accounts for the differences that different individuals are going to have when viewing a topic i.e.-- American: Sons of beeches knocked down our towers and killed many people. Erggh me mad. They have gone against the absolute truth of murder and are immoral. Al Queda Man #1: Haha, we showed those dirty infidels by doing God's will. We have not gone against God's will and are very moral. Bring out the 72 virgins. Moral relatavism can surely come into the picture. But when it is used you can pretty much justify anything. No one is questioning the perspective of Al Queda thinking they are in the right for doing a terrorist act. At some point though you have to take a step back and have an objective viewpoint. They believed they were justified in their actions but does that really mean that they were? No one is trying to deny free will or the fact that there are going to be different viewpoints on a common subject. Moral relativism opens up a **** storm of different opinions and subplants free will as the ultimate human good. Now the objective viewpoint that we take as correct is always up for debate, and I think that helps bring us closer to an understanding of just what the heck real truth is, and how our different persepectives are a beautiful reflection of bringing our free will into line with truth. I don't think this debate should be relegated to the strictly political or the strictly spiritual or the strictly metaphysical. However, I believe it is a debate that we must engage in, that we must allow to change us, and only by that will we become better.
