JohnDoe7 wrote: (1) One foundation we can look at is strictly one of standard logic. (2) If we observe "relativity" as a moral norm, (3) by default we observe a constant. In other words (4) if I follow a moral system that is in a state of change, (5) relative to internal and external factors, (6) and I do not adapt to that change than by default (7) (then) I am acting "immoral" in the respect (8) I "do not change".
With all due respect, the above sounds solid, but it is replete with logical failures.
(4) the moral system is not in state of change. The system employs changing parameters, such as direction of hurtful action, and perspective. But the system does not change.
(6) it is not a case of adapting to change, because the system does not change. You may find yourself in different situations with different directions of hurt of actions, and you may find your self in different perspectives therefore, but you can't avoid changing with the system' requirements of outcome. It's not a case of adapting; it is a case of calling your mother's rape "sinful" or "immoral";' while to an invading army, violating any stray women is morally acceptable. Once you are in a situation like that, you can't escape your value judgment between "evil" and "good", and it could be either, depending on your perspective.
Then in the argument you presented, having divorced your train of thought from the essence of moral relativity, you declare that being above morality (not changing with it) is immoral. That is not the case at all. You can be an observer, or a legal judge, or a person living thousands of miles away and not be affected by an atrocity, and you say actually that that makes you immoral because you do not change.
You do not change when there is no change warranted, and that is not immoral.
So I don't know if your understanding of moral relativity is compromised, or your corollaries derived from it. But your conclusion, as you wrote it, and your argument, muddles up a number of concepts, and introduces incongruent (relatively immaterial) concepts, and you declare a false conclusion therefore.
I suspect that you have a number of "generalized" laws in store, such as declaring that not changing with a changing system is a sign that shows the breakdown of the system. This is true, that you have that pattern, and you apply it where you ought not to. You also have a pattern stored somewhere in your "philosophical arguments' pantry", so to speak, that you can show that something is changing and not changing, and therefore that is impossible; but you equate concepts that are not equivalent, one changing, the other not, and you decide that the two concepts are equivalent, while they are not.
This was a classic case of that. You showed that the moral system is both changing and not changing, and you built your argument around that. But you only had to see, which I hope to have shown, that the system is not changing; it is the direction of the hurtful action that is the parameter that creates the change, the system itself is unchanging.
(***) Then you cited an example in which you do not change with the system. I wish you to show an actual, real life, albeit possibly imaginary situation, in which your moral judgment is OPPOSITE or UNAFFECTED when you are being materially hurt by another's action which you deem unjust.
You see, anyone can say "the speed of light is C, but take the example when the speed of light is five miles per hour." This is what you did: "The morality is relative, but if I defy that morality, then I am immoral." No. You can't defy that morality, and if you can, then please show the imaginary or real example where you defied morality as per the paragraph immediately before this one, marked (***)
Go wild, JohnDoe7. Spare no expletives.