Moral Relativism is philosophically weak

Did you use enough metaphors? "So if I took a baby, lets say its your baby, for the sake of the argument, and I butchered that baby before your eyes, is there any justification for saying that what I have done was wrong? " I might not like it, but I can not justify it as right or wrong. "See, something has to give here. You can't deny the fact that, intrinsically, nearly 98.5% of the human population would say it is wrong. Where then does such a unanimous and intrinsic understanding come from? People who say that it is wrong, just not absolutely wrong, then cannot explain why so many people would find it so morally reprehensible. Where did such a consensus come from that crosses over many different cultures and ages? " I can explain it: contractualism. we, as human, don't want harm to come to ourselves. We make agreements not to harm each other. So, when we see these agreements being violated, when we see such harm coming to another individual, it sets off a signal in our mind, because we don't want that to happen to us. It's a kinship type thing. But me not wanting to see harm come to someone else doesn't make that harm wrong or right. "If the butchering a baby were due to social norms, then it would stand to reason that a child under the age of, say, 5 years old, is not affected by such societal influences. But surely if we were to show that young child another child being butchered, the appropriate horror would come over their face, thus corroborating just how innate it is within us. " No, they can still have a preference against harm just by being human. However, there is no reason why his preference is right or wrong. Furthermore, there are several documented examples of children who have been raised in the wild and have no grasp of morality. there are children who were kept in a dark room almost from birth and have no grasp of morality. the only innate trait is a negative reaction to harm, because we don't want ourselves harmed. "You say that philosophy is a tool to seek truth. I couldn't agree more. However, you speak of moral relativism in such a way that would tacitly indicate that it is truth. Truth then is absolute. If truth is absolute, then how can moral relativism follow suit? Moral relativism is not true for the simple fact that it does not claim any truth. That's the whole point, in fact! What may be morally good and just to me, may be morally unjust to you. And according to you, neither can be right or wrong -- just two opposing opinions vying for consensus. " Philosophy seeks truth. Moral relativism recognizes the truth that there is no MORAL absolute. You're trying to blur the line between moral truths and other truths. The only truth about morality is that there are no absolutes. "Secondly, you smuggle in nihilism as a way to also show that truth can be uncovered using it. This is a complete contradiction, as the very definition of nihilism is that truth claims cannot be determined whatsoever, which is absolutely damning to your debate! " Fine, then drop the nihilism claim. It would take up too many characters to flow through with the argument, and I don't need it to win, anyway. "Thirdly, you state that the moral relativity is the actually the strongest philosophy. But your reasoning is an attempt to take the safest position possible, which is tantamount to, "I don't know," and then claiming strength in its complete and total ambiguity. Not withstanding the contradictions alone in illustrating perfectly the very weakness I speak of, you then assert that the weakness is actually its strength. " Once again, philosophy aims to find truth. You agreed to this. It is not to find function. It is not to make society run. It is to uncover the truth lying beneath the society. Moral relativism is the only philosophy that recognizes the truth that there are no moral absolutes. So, while it may be weak in resolving conflicts, it is very strong on a PHILOSOPHICAL level. Since that is what we are debating, that is all that matters. There is nothing wrong or right about stoning. You try to get me into a scenario where I pick one of the two options, but obviously I don't believe in either. Please, actually debate the topic, rather than giving hypothetical examples that people are likely to find reprehensible. Prove that these scenarios are objectively and absolutely reprehensible, and you will have disproven the claim to truth of moral relativism, and I will concede the debate. But they are serving no purpose as far as proving why moral relativism is philosophically weak. So long as there is nothing making these actions objectively and absolutely reprehensible, moral relativism is philosophically strong by recognizing the truth that there are no moral absolutes. Now, looking at your Singapore example: this proves moral relativism. This proves the plurality of moral ideas and how you can't prove any of them, thus roving moral relativism's PHILOSOPHICAL strength. The only weakness you can possibly show is a weakness in functioning, which is not an obligation of philosophy. But even if you want to accept that it is an obligation, there is no reason why a moral relativist can't have their own set of morals. The only difference is, a moral relativist recognizes that there is no objective or absolute reasoning that makes their morality superior to anybody else's, thus strengthening moral relativism on a philosophical level,a s moral relativists can both work out a functioning set of morality for themselves while still recognizing truth. Moreover, moral relativists, in recognizing that there is no right or wrong, can choose the most practical action in any given scenario without any moral doubt, thus strengthening moral relativism's ability to function. A Christian or a Humanist that is bound by unjustified morality cannot always choose the most practical option. (No offense meant to Christians or Humanists at all, by the way. ) Now, after about two hundred unnecessary metaphors that just reiterated the same point, you finally state, "Because without truth, there is nothing. " That doesn't do anything to prove your case for two reasons. One: moral relativism recognizes the truth of there being no moral absolutes. So, since we have truth, we obviously don't have nothing (sorry for the double negative). Two: even if we get to the point where there is nothing, this does not make moral relativism philosophically weak. All it does is prove that there is nothing. This does not make philosophical weakness. In summary: -My opponent has not proven why moral relativism is PHILOSOPHICALLY weak. If philosophy seeks the truth, then moral relativism recognizes a truth that other philosophies do not, make it very philosophically strong. -The examples that he gives prove the plurality of different moral standards, thus proving moral relativism's philosophical strength. -All of his attacks on moral relativism were based on it's weakness in functioning. Not only is this totally unrelated to moral relativism being philosophically strong or weak, he is completely wrong. as I showed you, a moral relativist can have one of the most function systems of morality that there is, since he is not bound by unjustified obligations.