I see, you think moral values have nothing to do with actual beings, and there nature is unrelated to values.
In that case, if objectivists are denying that they hold to any moral truth whatsoever (no moral axioms exist). That would make all objectivists moral relativists. No way around it.
This is partly correct. Moral values are both relative and absolute. The are relative in the sense that they are related to real beings living in a real world and define what is good for them and what is bad. Moral values are absolute in the sense the what will be good for those real beings is determined by the requirements of their nature and the nature of the world in which they live.
Objectivist reject arbitrary moral rules based on someone's whim and the principle that might makes right.
Hank
That's not what I said. I said that the nature of being (existence itself) has nothing to do with right and wrong. One is ontological, one is moral. Human Beings have morals, but "being" doesn't. Being is the state of existing, nothing more. Moral values have to do with each person's sense of "ought" and different people have different morals. Tell me if you can - where do I go to find the one set of true moral absolutes which dictate how I should behave morally? You said there are only 3 axioms and none of them had anything to do with how a person should behave. Maybe that's why Ayn Rand had a very liberal attitude when it came to sexuality, hmm?
This is partly correct. Moral values are both relative and absolute. The are relative in the sense that they are related to real beings living in a real world and define what is good for them and what is bad. Moral values are absolute in the sense the what will be good for those real beings is determined by the requirements of their nature and the nature of the world in which they live.
Sorry, logic (law of contradiction) does not allow A to be both A and non-A at the same time, and that is what you are suggesting by saying something can be both absolute and relative. They are opposites. What you describe is relativism. What is "requirement of their nature?" Man's nature allows many different moral models and each man decides how he should behave - each is a moral agent. "the nature of the world in which they live" - this sounds like situational ethics which is relativism. Each culture is different and each culture has different moral values. There is no ONE nature of the world in which we live.
Objectivist reject arbitrary moral rules based on someone's whim and the principle that might makes right.
No, they don't, they simply have adopted their own arbitrary value system. What did Ayn think of the 10 commandments - these are REAL moral absolutes. From what I have learned, she didn't think much of them, therefore, she was her own moral god - a relativist.