All Morals are Relative

I would like to begin by addressing a few broad issues. First, the resolution reads "All Morals are Relative". This resolution is negated simply by identifying a moral that isn't relative. Second, if a moral is absolute, then it is not relative, as per my opponent's definition. Third, for a moral to be absolute, according to my opponent's definition, it merely has to be intrinsic or viewed independent of arbitrary perspectives. It does not have to be universal, because it can still be used to judge right and wrong without every human in history using it. Given these three facts, my opponent is begging the question and incorrect in many of his statements. ============================= Now, my case: My opponent objects that rights are not moral standards. I have two objections to this. First, my opponent's source declaring self-governance a human right has no authority to do so, because it cannot guarantee such a right to all humankind. The United Nations has no real authority to intervene in member countries [1]. Second, I object that something does not cease to be a moral standard when a governing body begins protecting it. The standard I gave is still applicable as a way to distinguish right and wrong regardless. My opponent claims that an objective source of morality cannot be absolute; however, a standard that is objective is absolute by definition. Because the presented source of morality is absolute, it is not relative, and therefore not all morals are relative. My opponent has claimed that my standard does not address all moral dilemmas, when in fact it does. The dilemma of drug use, for example, is solved quickly--the use of drugs that does not interfere with the self-governance of others is morally right. Because it would be impossible for me to produce proof for every single possible moral dilemma as my opponent has demanded, I believe it is proper for him to find a specific dilemma that this does not address. My opponent insists that for a moral to be absolute, it must be universal. For something to be universal, something must be used by everyone. For something to be absolute, it must be intrinsic. Clearly, my opponent's objection is unwarranted. He also implies that for something to be a moral, it must be universal. This is absurd simply because under that definition, no morals are morals. My opponent has a few objections to my derivation. He objects to utilitarianism, that pleasure is a standard for ethics. My utilitarian arguments, found at the beginning and the end of my derivation, are non-essential to the sustenance of the derivation, because it is only one of the logical paths to the standard of self-governance; however, I will still defend it, briefly(because my opponent has only contradicted me, without any ethical argument). A society with more pleasure is happier. To make a person less happy is to make their life worse. Life should be as good as possible for as many people as possible, because pleasure is the body's feedback for doing the will of nature. Nature is objective and unbiased. My opponent concedes the human's ethical right to self-government. He objects that sex is, for some reason, immoral. I would like my opponent to back that claim up. My opponent claims that stealing money is, for some reason, moral. I would like my opponent to back that claim up. Regardless of my opponent's two baseless moral assertions, the objective and absolute standard still stands, because it is derived objectively, is intrinsic, and can still be used to determine right and wrong. My argument stands. An argument is not logically flawed simply if my opponent disagrees with it; it is logically flawed if there is a logical problem with it. A moral can be intrinsic and not absolute. My opponent's objections are baseless. ==================================== Now, I will address my opponent's case. My opponent objects that because individual self-governance may not be "free", that the individual cannot govern himself. I stated last round that self-governance is true regardless of the existence of free will because the human still governs himself, deterministically freely or not. My opponent objects that some people use other subjective morals to make decisions. I am not arguing that humans don't use other morals, and I am not required to. The resolution is that "All morals are relative" and this is negated if there exists any intrinsic morality. My opponent then asserts that my argument is flawed because in my arguments I assume an absolute morality; however, this statement was a conclusion from the argument before it. Human self-governance has not changed, and therefore not all morals have evolved. My opponent then pulls a cherry-picked definition out that requires all morality to be based in human knowledge; however, in the definition that isn't begging the question, morality is a system of determining right and wrong. Because of this, an absolute morality does not have to be in practice and it does not have to be known. Because of this, the principle of moral evolution does not affect my position. My opponent has not refuted my "witty" statement, he has merely stated that it proves nothing. It proves plenty. Human knowledge does not limit existence. My opponent cannot deny this, and I have a plethora of examples (the atom, etc) if needed. A moral is only required to be known to man under my opponent's cherry-picked definition. I have identified an absolute system for morality, and human knowledge of it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Also, as mentioned before, an absolute moral does not have to be universal. Just as differences in scientific belief do not mean that there is scientific relativity, differences in moral belief do not mean that there is moral relativity. My opponent has conceded that his argument regarding the lack of universal standards falls with the existence of the standard of human self-governance. Source: [1] http://www.jstor.org...