I agree about the behavior of relativists, but I'm going to argue with you because I want to see more discussion.
If the objective truths are granular enough don't they change relative to the situation? Perhaps they change relative to the individual making the choice as well so that you can't make proper moral rules (the "correct moral code"). That would more or less still be relativism.
By changing relative to the individual, I mean: Say I'm having an excelent day and I'm super happy and I treat a cashier with bare politeness, not sharing my mood at all. I'm being pretty selfish, aren't I?
But say I'm having a bad day and I want to snap at everyone I meet, but I treat the cashier with bare politeness, not sharing my mood at all -- now I'm being kind. Eh?while every situation is different, an objective truth exists for that very specific situation
Relativists say, "no, not everything is objective because each situation is different or a person might think a certain action is better morally better than another" when in reality, for each relative situation THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE TRUTH. So yes, the objective truths do change "relative to the situation," but there still is an objective truth to each of those situations. Relativists have it wrong because they think that there isn't just one answer to anything, when in reality, there is. In both situations where you treat the cashier with bare politeness, you are doing the wrong thing. You should treat the cashier with kindness because it is virtuous and it maximizes the total happiness in the situation. It doesn't matter how you are feeling, there is an objective way to treat the cashier: with kindness.