system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
How can I justify saying that I am not a moral relativist?

I believe in an absolute right and wrong. But I also can see it is infinitely clear that ethics change across time and location and that humans are programmed to rationalize their actions. Is that contradictory?
gpt
Why does it matter that people think different things? Absolute right and wrong doesn't necessitate that anyone knows what it is or that its easily discoverable. This confusion comes from the fact that people equate human sets of morals with the hypothetical moral facts they refer to as if they were the same thing, and so changing human precepts somehow damages the idea of static moral facts. But they're not, so it doesn't. If anything moral relativism is more sketchy and arbitrary, since placing morals in the power of humans to decide in arbitrary ways, but which are then binding is more bizarre and arbitrary than the other options. 

Its obvious that humans rationalize their actions, but compare it with epistemology. People rationalizing irrational beliefs, or various other belief errors wouldn't make anyone doubt there being a correct state of affairs. It may be true that some things will never be solved in ethics, but we can still refine the idea so that we can do "Better" rather than "worse" within hopefully reasonable metrics. Setting your goals too high can make it look ambiguous, but its not as bleak as one might imagine. A deontologist and a utilitarian are probably going to agree that drop kicking your neighbor bob off a cliff is bad, but that donating money that helps an important cause is good.