There is no solid evidence for or against the idea that moral absolutes exists. Therefore the default position, if there is one, would be one of agnosticism on the issue.
Agnosticism could be considered a reasonable default on the question of moral absolutes.
The question of relativism, however, has already been answered. It springs from the fact of human individualism, and from the nature of the self. The secular world is relativistic. It is the world you live in; it is the world I live in.
As you have said: there is no (solid) evidence for the existence of moral absolutes (although, I would say there is no evidence of any kind). In deference, however, to you default position, I will agree that there may be a supreme and perfect authority--one who has absolute rules.
Of course, you understand, that such would transcend self interest, and do away with individualism. These absolute rules would be for the benefit and the use of the absolute entity. Individuals may only pursue self interest through relativistic interpretations of an infinite variety of considerations. They may not remain as individuals, or act in their own self interest, if interpretation and choice are effectively denied them by fiat. |
