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.
Try the Koran. A lot of people seem to like it, and it's as good as any other source of superstitious "absoultes."
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.
Sometimes ... ah well, look, do you know the formula e=ir. Well, that's absolute, isn't it. The voltage will aways equal the current time the resistance. (Don't tell me this only applies to AC and doesn't account for reactance, etc. etc. It is a DC formula). Now tell me, for any particular DC circuit, since we have this absolute law, what is the voltage? You cannot tell, because it depends on how much current there is and the resistance in the circuit. Actual voltage is relative to actual resistance and current.
Relative and absolute are not things. To say something is both relative and absolute does not violate the law of contradiction because the law only applies to things "in the same context." So, moral principles are determined by the nature of the case (just like Ohm's law) but how those principles are applied are determined relative to the facts of each case. Any other law is arbitrary, having no relationship to reality or real values.
...10 commandments - these are REAL moral absolutes...
But you do not believe they are really absolute. Why should anyone else.
Hank