You see, an absolute morality, to me, is one that exists beyond human influence. It is not created by humans, even though humans are subject to its rules. It is a morality that exists forever and always, doesn't change, and affects all people the same (e.g. 'judgement' after death).
I've always called this "objective morality" vs. "subjective morality". I've seen "absolute" morality used in both senses, but my own subjective feeling about the phrase "absolute" is that it is one that always holds in all situations, whereas "relative" implies that it can change with the situation.
A pacifist, for example, might believe that the rule that one never, ever kills another person no matter what the situation is an absolute rule -- yet she might still recognize that it is a subjective rule in that others may feel that it is legitimate to kill other people (at least in some situations, like self-defence) and that there is objective standard by which to judge which one is correct.
I guess it isn't so important which words one uses as long as people use and understand the words in the same way in the same conversation. In fact I have used "absolute/relative" in the sense you are using them because I felt that it would be too much trouble to interject my own definitions (which might be idiosyncratic anyway).
Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?
A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. --
jhuger
™ Version 4.2
