There's such a science. It's mathematics. Relativism isn't a problem, neither is absolutism alone a necessity. Or has mathematics ever been disturbed by relativism?

Does 'anything go' in mathematics? No.

I understand now.

Then I could say what we need is not a new language but new knowledge (if such a thing exists) to understand the evolving morality.

In a reality where we recognize all things to be conscious we have to define a completely new way of relating to life. This will be a wrenching change, something akin to Galileo's overthrow of accepted reality when he postulated the Heliocentric model.

For instance, can we argue vegetarianism as a moral choice (to protect poor animals) if plants have life, feelings and hence similar rights to animals? If we can't eat plants or animals with a clear conscience where does that leave us?

Does this not lead us to the implication that life, of itself, (including human life) has no intrinsic value or special regard, all depends on utility?

At least I can see us learning from hunter gatherer societies who believe everything has a spirit and honor animals even as they kill them for food. Interesting times indeed.

All I can say, is that you are putting new wine in old wine skins. The Jains and Buddhists, and all world views have to be transformed. The dream time, and the spirits are neither spared.

Before the plant bears customized fruit, the farmer will have negotiated with it on mutual terms.

Show me how morality is mathematics. Give me a formula like a+b=it's moral to kill or c-d=peace.Define the word morality using mathematics.

I think the rules that construct our Universe make it impossible for any absolute to exist. The basic premise is that, as long as the possibility exists that something can be falsified, it can not be an absolute.

I am not aware of any belief system, theory or even perception that can not be falsified. Are you?

Even relativism can possibly be falsified, as you are trying to do.