frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...

To the degree that relativism is a more accurate decription of the
truth than is objectivism, it provides more power and ability to
control events.

Assuming, for the moment, that morals _are_ relative, then two
relativists can recognize that neither has a lock on the absolute
truth and they can proceed to negotiate a workable compromise that
produces the desired results.

Assuming that there is an absolute morality, two disagreeing 
objectivists can either be both wrong or just one of them right; there
is no room for compromise.  Once you beleive in absolute morals,
you must accept that you are amoral or that everyone who disagrees
with you is amoral.

Given a choice between a peaceful compromise or endless contention,
I'd say that compromise seems to be "better".
