JLN,
Your argument makes perfect sense to me even if as Joe says you fail to establish the origin of "Moral Absolutism". In arguing with absolutists it is a fair bet that most of them believe morals to be of divine origin. Polkinghorne (Mathematical Physicist turned Anglican priest) argued as much on a BBC programme last year. He effectively said that we no longer need to account for causality, but we still need a deity to account for morals. This argument was countered by evolutionists who argued that moral values could be explained by an "altruism gene" which gave advantages for humans with long childhood dependency periods.
Irrespective of attempting to differentiate between esthetic and moral judgements relativism is clearly demonstrated in cases of "survival cannibalism" and similar extreme situations. In less extreme situations like the growing of opium or deforestation for profit we have relative scale of "moral domain" involved. Since microcutures or microsituations are the essence of cultural diversity, the case that "morality" is inherently relative seems sound.
Okay, so now I'm the head figure of the close-minded absolutist?
Hey if that's what you want to call me, then go ahead.
All moral relativism is doing, is stating how people can disagree on things and then claim that because there is a disagreement, there can be no valid point on a moral issue that is true. Moral relativism does not consider the objective requirement of a valid moral system, yet it is implying within its statement, that we ought to believe that we should not judge the morals of others, and thus posing its own objective moral criterion.
Thing is, we cannot say one way or the other whether morality is relative or absolute, especially considering that distinctions between relative and absolute cannot be established or fixed.
Morality is relative to individuals in that morality originates from (supposed) individuals, but the source of morality symbolized in thought and feelings etc. is an unknown. I.e. what is it that gives meaning to thought, feelings or anything?
There may in fact only be ONE source of morality and it would not be an individual if the distinction between the individual and the whole breaks down upon inquiry.
