All Morals are Relative

==Moral Standard== I am arguing that there is a simple, objective moral standard: the ability of the individual to govern his or her person and property. Any act that trespasses on this ability is immoral and any act that does not is morally just. Derivation: Happiness, in essence, is the reward the Body gives the Mind for succeeding at priorities defined by both the Body and the Mind. Pain, in essence, is the punishment the Body gives the Mind for failing at accomplishing these priorities. These priorities are, in essence, the ultimate will. The Individual, whether he or she has free will or not, has the natural ability to act upon his or her priorities. When the Individual fulfills his most urgent wants needs, he feels more satisfaction than he would otherwise. The Individual uses the means properly owned by him towards these ends. Most obvious of these means is the Self, one's person. Because the Individual is in the best position to govern himself due to biology, it is best that the Individual is left to govern himself. The Individual has a higher claim on himself than any other because of natural will. Given then that the Individual has the full right to govern himself, he must also govern his labor and therefore its produce. Because of this, the Individual also has the right to his property. From here, we can take two approaches to arriving at the moral standard aforementioned. We can continue on the strain of the biological argument and state that because the Individual has the supreme right to govern his property that anyone who infringes upon this right is breaking the standard set by nature, or we can pull the utilitarian argument out and state that the Individual is happiest when he is free to pursue his own values and priorities, and is less happy when otherwise. Applications: A. The Individual wants to buy his lunch. An Aggressor stabs him and takes his money. The Aggressor has infringed upon both the Individual's person (by stabbing him) and property (by taking his money); therefore, the Aggressor is immoral. B. The Individual wants to buy lunch. Another Individual wants to sell him lunch for profit. Both Individuals meet their more urgent priorities in the money-for-lunch transaction and are happier for it. Neither have had their right to govern person and property infringed upon. Therefore, the transaction was morally just. C. The Individual would like to purchase a video game. A Government decides to tax him. The Individual's liberty to govern his property has been infringed upon. Therefore, the taxation was immoral. ==Conclusion== There is an objective moral system that is philosophically superior to any alternative. It will neither change with time nor with nationality. It is a simple system with practical applications based in natural self-governance, the unchanging principle of life. ==Refutations== --Moral Evolution-- Self-governance has remained constant throughout the history of life, and serves as an objective base for a moral system. Absolute morality has not changed over time; the human quest for morality has lead to the creation and destruction of several moral models. Although chemists moved from the Dalton Cube to the Quantum Mechanical models of chemical bonding, the underlying scientific truth of it has never changed. In the same way, human knowledge of morality does not affect the objective morality. --Meta-Ethical Differences-- The existence of meta-ethical differences is irrelevant to the existence of moral truth, for our knowledge of something does not limit its existence. The Individual that is not free to govern himself has not only lost happiness, but his natural state of self-governance. Regardless of whether or not this invasion feels right or wrong to any party is irrelevant to that fact and to the truth that the Individual has lost those two priceless liberties. --Universal Standards-- I have given the objective standard of self-governance as an objective standard for morality. Because ethics and morality based on this standard are objectively correct, one who holds these ethics is morally superior to one that does not. ==Conclusion== There is an objective moral standard, whether societies recognize it or not. Because of this, morals are not relative or subjective, but objective, and the resolution is negated. I now yield the floor to my opponent.