So I wouldn't say anything is relative really. But moral discussions tend to rely on trying to reach agreement and resonance, since they can't really be proven empirically. That's why they are beliefs. You can say someone else has a more flexible worldview if you hold a more rigid one, but that doesn't mean theirs doesn't have a different logic. Alinskys worldview for instance was based on balancing power in society--in other words social justice. He was not relative by any standard. He just had a more spacious/dynamic value system. He wrote passionatley against dogma from any side, which he called the enemy of human freedom and which darkens the light of the world.