> Unfortunately, the idea of using society as a guide is flawed, as society (and those who influence it) are not consistent.

Flawed in what way? I would state, in fact, that it is demonstratably true that morals are NOT absolutes, but do have some common basis across the human species.

The common argument against moral relativism is that if morals are relative there can be no real morals at all. But taking things from a scientific evolutionary standpoint, morals are right or wrong depending on how they affect the society. Not coincidentally, this is EXACTLY how morals are really defined and used in the real world, despite people's supposingly basing this in religion. As society changes, so do the details of what is immoral or not. It is NOT unchanging, which should be obvious to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history.