If truth is not absolute then everything should be okay and there should be no laws? Is this an logical statement?

The part about "everything should be OK" makes no sense at all and should probably be scrapped.

"Truth is not absolute" is a fallacy. Something cannot be logically called true unless it is absolutely true.

Finally, there is no direct logical link between truth and laws. A liar could follow a law, a liar could make a law. A law can exist and people could support it even if it is based on a lie. This is actually more common than you think. People could even disbelieve the Truth that the law is based on and still support the law. For example you could pass a law that prevents teens from driving at night even if the truth is that it doesn't reduce accidents. And people could support the law, because they are like the idea of teens not driving at night.

The statement itself is logical, but the PREMISE is false. Truth IS absolute.

Absolutely not.

No, that is not a logical statement.

Suppose truth really is absolute. Rape and murder are bad. So we have laws against them.

Suppose truth is a matter of opinion. The majority of voters believe rape and murder are bad. So we have laws against them.

Either way, we have laws. Laws are there to encourage people to make good choices and punish people who make illegal choices. Laws are not about absolute truth.

What I’m hearing you ask is whether one who claims that “truth is not absolute” is claiming therefore that what they believe is justified or right. Sure.

This is called “moral relativism” and it is, from what I understand, the position of a majority of Americans.

It is what is used in many arguments right here on YA and between people everyday.

It is also, as you correctly found, a basis for no laws, or any imaginable law, and is totally illogical.

One who claims “truth is not absolute” is making an claim of absolute truth: “No truth is absolute except for what I just said!” Ridiculous. This is self-defeating and therefore, not valid.

Sometimes examples are given of an event, such as a contested touchdown, where several people give varying but truthful accounts...these are utterly silly. They ignore the fact that whether a touchdown actually occurred is an objective truth, whether it was observed correctly or not.

Truth is absolute. That statement is reasoned, rational and logical.

I wouldn't say it's a logical statement.

For instance, there is an accident 3 people view it from different angles and see slightly different things, only part of the action is visible to each individual. When each one tells their view of the accident, they are telling the truth but they may disagree with each other

However they all agree that the accident shouldn't have happened

Inject an element of "rational moderation" wherein we each have rights so long as those rights do not infringe upon the rights of others. Balance.

If you get into quantum physics or metaphysics, Truth becomes an inert (unchanging) body of principle and the only true Reality is Omnipotent Good (a.k.a., Divine Idea, God, Allah...whatever name one might use to express the Omnipotent ALL). In electronic theory, manifested form or what we call "life" on this material earthly plane, is actually an illusion---the lowest frequency and slowed moving vibratory field within the Omnipotent All.

In the same way that music is formed, each note and chord is balanced in harmony, and so it is what humanity. Rational moderation is how to avoid or avert chaos or cruelty.