Hi ktc,
Not sure who wrote that piece. If it was you, I'm not sure why you apply your fallacious inference to non-extreme views.
1. Circumstances matter.
2. Between the North pole and the South Pole the climate isn't some point midway between freezing and icy.
3. Human nature is various.
4. Puritanism is unstable.
Looking at your examples, with respect to war, your "whenever possible" in Position A is relativist and your apparent relativist fallacy is defensible in many circumstances and therefore your pejorative description is hard to maintain.
Your example of the morality of killing has an obvious exception of self-defense. Murder (or homicide), of course, is a type of killing which is non-permissible in law but that does not mean all killing is murder. The law admits a lesser offense known as manslaughter. Intention counts. So the law also admits the usefulness of relativism.
There's a reason that folks allow the dilution of fixed principles and attend to circumstances when drawing conclusions about morality. It is because it is wise to do so. You get better answers that way.
The nature of reality is that abstract principles don't float through space in some isolated form, allowing easy right answers to every question. Virtues compete. Time and circumstances influence our perceptions. Sometimes a 3D object moves through a plain and if we comprehend it, we can enlarge our thinking.
| 