Moral relativism eliminates morality altogether, by saying that one cannot make a moral stand, because morality itself does not exist--there is no good and evil, only pleasure and pain.
Moral absolutism takes the route of saying that morality exists (courtesy of [insert divine phantasm of choice]) and we drudges only have to march to the beat of that particular drummer to achieve salvation. The faithful are to follow the dictates of [So and So] or risk damnation.
In other words, one denies the existence (or desirability) of ethics, and the other denies the existence of volition. Neither option empowers the individual or is liberating.
Consequently, both of these attitudes hold enormous attraction to authoritarians, as a populace that is either unable to form an opinion about things or who blindly follow the commands of the ruling elite are of great value to those in power.
This is why, particularly in America, issues like class, politics, and religion are overwhelmingly unpopular topics--because for people to discuss things requires that they use their minds; to question and challenge existing assumptions, and this is anathema to authoritarians.
Anarchists, conversely, hold that individuals are entirely empowered to question and assess the world around them--in fact, they require it. You cannot be an anarchist and blindly accept ANYTHING!
Mikhail Bakunin, one of the founding anarchist thinkers, expressed this radical skepticism as so...
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world. I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker."
And Emile Henry, one of countless martyred anarchists, said it very well with...
"Beware of believing anarchy to be a dogma, a doctrine above question or debate, to be venerated by its adepts as is the Koran by devout Moslems. No! The absolute freedom which we demand constantly develops our thinking and raises it toward new horizons...takes it out of the narrow framework of regulation and codification. We are not 'believers!'"
Anarchists take, essentially, a scientific approach to problems. Anarchists arrive at ethical judgments without relying on the mythology of spiritual aid, but on the merits of their own minds. This is done through logic and reason, and is a far better route to resolving moral questions than obsolete, authoritarian systems like orthodox religion and certainly better than the "there is no wrong or right" of moral relativism.
How is this so? First off, one must get to the roots of what we consider good and evil and get past them. Instead of good and evil, right and wrong, think of accurate and inaccurate as the logical poles by which a judgment can be rendered.
There are accurate and inaccurate views of the world. The criterion upon which these views are based lies in evidence, or the lack thereof.
It is known that anarchism tends to follow a materialist philosophy--that is, focusing on tangible reality upon which to build a reliable worldview. This is because, as thinking, rational beings, the only thing we have to work with is what we can access via evidence. Evidence is the building block of logic, and thus, reason. The opposite of reason is faith (or superstition), that is, belief in the absence of evidence.
It is easy to arrive at an opinion without proof (for example, I could say "I can leap over tall buildings in a single bound") but it's just that--an opinion, NOT a fact. The natural reaction to such a statement is "prove it", which means "provide evidence that this is so."
Something is accurate when there is enough evidence to support it. Water is wet. This is an accurate statement. Water is dry. This is an inaccuracy.
More complex ideas require a correspondingly broader range of evidence, but it is ultimately possible to determine the accuracy of a given idea.
So, evidence forms a cornerstone of human reason.
That which has credible evidence behind it can be considered accurate. That which is accurate can also be said to be true. What is true must also be what is right (e.g., correct). That which is right brings enlightenment (e.g., broadens knowledge) That which brings enlightenment must also be just. That which is just must also be good.
The progression is, therefore:
That which has no credible evidence behind it can be said to be inaccurate. That which is inaccurate can also be said to be false. What is false must also be what is wrong (e.g., incorrect). That which is wrong fosters (or perpetuates) ignorance. That which encourages ignorance must also be unjust. That which is unjust must also be evil.
The progression here is:
The above progression can be applied in every situation where you have two contrasting views. Ignorance must always yield injustice, as it suppresses the key human faculty of reason. Just as enlightenment must always bring justice. Justice must always be in accordance with the facts, for it to be just.
Instances of wrongdoing occur when people stray from justice, which is, in effect, willfully pursuing a course that brings them profit at the expense of others. This is the basic motivation for perpetuating misdeeds.
One tactic by a side arguing from a fallacious premise lies in using narrowly-defined or selective evidence to "prove" their point. However, this is foolish, as history has shown time and again. Throughout humankind's history, incorrect theories have been forcibly exported, and have always ultimately been wrong.
Examples of this include the ideas that the Earth was flat, that it was the center of the universe; that the Ptolemaic cosmological system was, in fact, correct; all racial "science" (e.g., pointing to the supremacy of one ethnic group over others); spontaneous generation; belief in God*, and so on. All were elaborate misconceptions based on faulty premises.
*This will no doubt trouble any traditional, socialized readers, but the fact remains that there is no credible evidence for the existence of God. Belief in God is just that--belief. Faith is not science, nor is it reason. Faith defined (American Heritage Dictionary) is:
"2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"
This progression, then, is the basis of arriving at ethical judgments through reason. Anarchists believe it is wrong for people to be forced to accept a false doctrine--akin to people being forced to believe in a lie.
This is also the root of anarchist opposition to the theories of the state and the economic system of capitalism...we think that they are based on fallacious (and self-serving) premises.
There are benefits to this position as well as drawbacks. One of the key benefits is adaptability--since anarchists are not dogmatic, they adapt ideas to the situations at hand. This can be unsettling to more authoritarian personalities, eager to have the Truth proclaimed to them.
However, anarchists see this non-dogmatic nature as a strength, in allowing us to revise and update our theories as more evidence comes in. It is in this respect that we refer to anarchism as a political theory, rather than an ideology.
An ideology is defined as "The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture." Think of it like a package of ideas you are expected to swallow. All major authoritarian doctrines are ideologies.
A theory, in turn, is "systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances; especially, a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedures designed to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena." Anarchism is far looser than its rival "-isms" for this reason. Anarchism is not confined solely to the political arena, but is, in fact, a larger concept applicable in a wide variety of settings.
It is in this respect that anarchists are so non-dogmatic and fractious--the other "-isms" proclaim a Truth (or a Lie) and you either are with them or against them. Anarchists go beyond that toward a more holistic approach. This gives anarchists a great deal of diversity, which you will not find in other political camps, but also prevents the ready acceptance of it--because we don't pretend to know all the answers, it makes us seem weak and irresolute.
But what seems like weakness to the authoritarian is really honesty on our part. We don't seek to cheat, swindle, and deceive other people.
Does this mean that anybody can be an anarchist? (to jump back to the moral relativist line) No. Authoritarians can never be anarchists--anarchists are libertarians to the core. That which fosters and encourages authoritarianism earns our eternal opposition. It is for this reason that we oppose capitalism and government.
So, to round it out, why is illegitimate authority seen as bad, wrong, and evil by anarchists?
We see illegitimate authority as an evil because it is imposed on others without their consent, and is, thus, coercive. Coercion, or force, is always wrong, in that it is the negation of human reason--the capacity to choose for ourselves what we do or do not do (aka, volition). Force negates reason through threat of violence.
This authority is imposed for the benefit of an elite, and not for the benefit of the governed, and is maintained on false pretenses (some of which include: the Social Contract, the lie that humans are innately evil, and so on), and as such, is coercive.
There is no reason for this propertarian elite to "need" any more than the rest of us--they are as human as the rest of us, and thus, are in no position to rule over us, except, again, through force. Force remains the negation of reason, which is wrong. There is no justification for a class-stratified society--no reason for it to exist, except that it brings much profit to those on top--again, without reason.
But there remains a path from empirical observation, to logically derived thought, to ethical judgment. I'll repeat the progression:
But just because nature doesn't care, does that mean it is natural for humankind not to care, either? Is it impossible for humans to get an understanding of good and evil on their own, in the absence of any higher authorities -- e.g., God, State, or Market?
What I'm saying is that the route to good is through evidence and accuracy -- that evil worldviews must necessarily be based on false premises. Good can never come from the absence of suppression of evidence.
It is for this reason that anarchists vigorously oppose censorship, which is a valued tool for authoritarians -- censorship is the attempt to kill thoughts before they occur. Nothing good ever comes from censorship, as it robs a person of their ability to choose (an essential aspect of what makes us human) and diminishes our reason.
One myth, one that even "containment" engineer, George Kennan as well as several higher-ups in the CIA admitted was that the USSR was bent on world domination. The Soviets never intent on that, and the genuine historical record shows that.
The fact that the USSR had lost 20 million of its people to the Nazis -- that Russia had lost nearly 40 million of its people in World War I & II together -- via the same invasion route -- Eastern Europe -- is ignored, even though the US has routinely invaded neighboring countries without justification. The "logic" of course is that if the US does it, it must be right.
But we can go even deeper. So, you think the Cold War began after WWII, as a reaction to the brutality of Stalinist Russia? What if we add some more evidence to the equation? You're welcome to research this on your own.
So, before the rise of Stalin, before the totalitarianism of Bolshevism was entrenched, before the occupation of Eastern Europe, we see the West actually INVADING the USSR in an attempt to thwart the Russians' right to self-determination. This would be repeated countless times around the world, particularly in its self-appointed role as "world's policeman".
But the point is that the mainstream idea of the Cold War ("democratic" West's outrage at Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe) doesn't fit all the facts. The West was determined to try to crush the nascent Soviet regime from its genesis -- thus, the "cold war" began three decades earlier than people commonly think.
However, because this information puts the "democratic" West in a bad light -- as counter-revolutionary aggressors -- it is ignored.
Now, some cynics will likely say that the western leaders were imbued with incredible foresight, "knowing" that the October Revolution would lead to the Bolshevik dictatorship -- but this is pure speculation, and is not based on the facts.
The facts available show the "democratic" West forcibly invading another country in an attempt to forestall (or reverse) the collapse of a corrupt, ruthless, feudal Tsarist regime. Hardly very democratic!
It was this invasion by the West that set the tone for the growing mistrust between the USSR and the capitalist West, not, as is commonly (and wrongly) believed, because of the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe.