Proposition: the US is founded on moral relativism

[erislover]

if the legal standard being applied Monday is substantively different from the legal standard being applied on Tuesday, then both standards are absolute within their respective scopes in the sense that there are no opposing standards, but they’re relative in the sense that the standards are wholly dependent upon the (in this case highly variable) whims of one dictator.

A test for absolutism:

“Doing A is bad.”
“Says who?”

In this case, the authority to appeal to is the dictator… there are no other sources of moral authority.

A more objective standard would have dependencies that are themselves more objective, e.g. logic, culture, majority-rule, etc.

Excepting logic, I do not see how those are more objective in an absolutist sense. The appeal to multiple decision-makers for majority rule within a specific culture is as about relativist as one can get.