But in these cases you are only searching for what satisfies YOUR bias. You've just abandoned the search basically, so it doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying.
You're basically saying that a relativist morality is NO MORALITY AT ALL. In other words, you're defining morality as necessarily non-relative. That's the only way you could say that having a relativist morality is "abandoning the search basically"--i.e. not actually searching for a moral judgment of a situation.
So... of course, when you define morality to mean non-relativist, you're going to come out with the result that making moral judgments assumes absolute morality. But that's not much of a conclusion--that's just playing "p's and q's" with definitions.
I said the SEARCH FOR THE BEST MORAL RESOLUTION OF ANY GIVEN DILEMMA (which has been the occupation of most of the human race forever, until postmodern chaos took over), implies that there must be an absolute morality.
Seems to me as well that the human race has traditionally assumed an absolute morality. I also agree that post-modern thought on morality seems chaotic. But I guess it's always chaotic in times of change.
I'm wondering if what you call post-modern relativistic morality is simply the moral equivalent to globalization of economic markets. When you try to globalize different absolute moralities, I think you're stuck either incessantly fighting with no ability to resolve any conflict, or stuck to accept some type of relativistic morality, even if only on a purely practical level.
That's my thought for the day.