Which side resonates with you? As for me, since I believe in the “Good” as explained by Plato, Absolutes exist as forms (ideas) within the good which devolve into universal principles or absolutes. However Jesus distinguished between the law and mercy. He healed on the Sabbath. Is this a contradiction?Moral Absolutism is concerned with right and wrong conduct. The absolute is what determines whether the action or conduct is right or wrong. Therefore, from the standpoint of moral absolute, some things are always right and some things are always wrong no matter how one tries to rationalize them. Moral absolutism emerges from a theistic worldview.
Moral Relativism is defined as the belief that conflicting moral beliefs are true. This carries the idea that what you regard as a right conduct may be a right conduct for you, but not for me. To put it another way, "Relativism [insists that] what is true for the individual replaces the search for absolute truth" (Mark P. Cosgrove, Foundations of Christian Thought, 96). "These conflicting moral beliefs may exist in the case of two or more individuals or in different cultures (cultural relativism) or in different historical epochs (historical relativism)" (Ronald Nash, Life's Ultimate Questions, 343).
Of course when the Great Beast is god, then nothing is possible other than moral relativism. If the vertical relationship between the Good and creation is reality, then we must gravitate to a higher source than society or what Plato called the Beast to experience the truth of absolutes.. Not an easy question to do justice to since it arouses conflicting emotional rections preventing being open to serious contemplation. How to resolve the question?