But morality is still relative because maybe kicking a dog would help a rabbit escape.
This entirely fails to address the point being discussed. My argument was neither for nor against relativism. When considering the ontology of morality, its relativity or objectivity is a matter of surprisingly little consequence.
So this means you can define what someone will believe based on their physiology? And why does morality have to be limited to physical circumstances, especially bringing harm to one's self? Besides, you could say the relativity has major importance. If all the different animals had the same concepts or actions and interpreted situations the same, wouldn't they act differently? It is because there are different ways to view different actions that such complex social interactions have evolved.
So this means you can define what someone will believe based on their physiology? And why does morality have to be limited to physical circumstances, especially bringing harm to one's self? Besides, you could say the relativity has major importance. If all the different animals had the same concepts or actions and interpreted situations the same, wouldn't they act differently? It is because there are different ways to view different actions that such complex social interactions have evolved.