Ok, so let's move away from ethics, which is not really the arena in which I want to develop this thought, but rather in the arena of ontology.
So, we have a vase. It is sitting on a table. Its existence and location is absolute. Yet, its significance is relative. Is it a Ming dynasty vase, or a cheap copy? The difference between the physical virtues of the two is negligible, but the significance is not.
Is the table able to take its weight? The significance of the objective existence of the book is entirely relative.
Or, perhaps, you could take words. A word on a page is a bunch of particles that absorb more light than the more reflective particles against which it is set. It's just ink blobs on a page. The significance of that word is, however, entirely contingent on whether there is a person standing and looking at it, whether they can speak the language and whether or not they know that the word is Bruce Winter's photocopy code.
On a note I think Arthur will like, I think that this type of thinking affirms the inherent, absolute value of things while acknowledging that all things occur within the context of a relational context created by God. I'm not sure that Platonism does justice to this, while Joyce Meyer gets closer to the Mark.