Okay, then these are the people I'm arguing against, as a view of morality. I'm arguing that, say, dragging 6-year-olds off the train tracks, as opposed to eating them for lunch, is every bit as much uniquely the right answer as it looks; and that the Space Cannibals are every bit as awful as they look; and that the aliens do not have a different view of the subject, but simply a view of a different subject.

As an intuition pump, it might help to imagine someone saying that "truth" has different values in different places and that we want to parameterize it by true<Islam> and true<Science>. If Islam has a sufficiently different criterion for using the word "true", i.e. "recorded in the Koran", then we just want to say "recorded in the Koran", not use the word "true".

Another way of looking at it is that if we are not allowed to use the word "right" or any of its synonyms, at all, a la Empty Labels and Rationalist Taboo and Replace the Symbol with the Substance, then the new language that we are forced to use will no longer create the illusion that we and the aliens are talking about the same thing. (Like forcing people from two different spiritual traditions to say what they think exists without using the word "God", thus eliminating the illusion of agreement.) And once you realize that we and the aliens are not talking about the same thing at all, and have no disagreement over the same subject, you are no longer tempted to try to relativize morality.

It's all very well to tell me that I should stop arguing over definitions, but I seem to be at a loss to make people understand what I am trying to say here. You are, of course, welcome to tell me that this is my fault; but it is somewhat disconcerting to find everyone saying that they agree with me, while continuing to disagree with each other.