Moral Relativism is an erroneous ethical theory.

My opponents supposed accusation of my own confusion between descriptive and prescriptive theories ===================================================================== Well isn't this great. "As you can see, my definition of moral relativism refers to the NORMATIVE version of it." No, I don't see anything within your first argument you made in Round 1, or this argument, that points to which version of the theory my opponent wants to discuss. Infact, when reading the topic of this debate, "Moral Relativism is an erroneous ethical theory", such a debate topic points towards "What is this" rather than the opposing question of "Should be this". However, my opponent seems to be implying that although moral relativism is likely correct, it should not be correct, which is quite puzzling to me. It's as if one were to say that the world is spherical, but it should be flat. I don't find much use in such an argument, because the physical world is what it is, and is not what it is not. Hypothesizing whether or not the earth should really be flat, or that moral relativism is wrong, despite the fact that reality already functions in a certain way, is quite a waste of time, because the argument is endless. Which is why I was not aware that you were trying to make such an argument against Moral Relativism, and which is why i chose to debate why Moral relativism, in the descriptive version in the first place. "Ultimately, my opponent fails to even realize what topic we are debating about, so I haven't much to say." Perhaps it was my fault for assuming that we were discussing what is, and not what it should be. However, in future debates, it may help if you expand upon what the contentions you wish to debate, are. That, sir, is a failure on your part. If you have a specific debate on your mind, it is not up to your opponent to read your mind and understand what sort of debate you wish to have. ===================================================================== Prescriptive moral relativism results in a logical contradiction ===================================================================== Although I have no problem moving this debate to your intended course of arguments, I see now that your argument applies to both the descriptive and prescriptive versions of Moral Relativism. The only conclusion I could possibly bring, is that you simply do not wish to be shot down so early in the debate, and thus resorted to separate the descriptive and prescriptive aspects of Moral Relativism, in order to avoid having to discuss the obvious fact that Moral Relativism is correct. And now, onto the argument. I have a problem with P3/P4. Truth values to things that are subjective, which is the case of moral relativism, depends on the perspective. In logic, the truth value can depend on its specific interpretation or logical system. In the case of morality, truth values can change depending on the goal that the specific interpreter wishes to pursue. If my goal is to provide the least amount of suffering to each human being, then obviously my stance on Moral values with questions such as Slavery, will be against. The truth value of such a stance, would be "True" to me, but it will be "false" to someone who wishes to achieve a different goal. Therefore, the statement in P4, of "A != A", is not correct, but rather, "A != B". ===================================================================== Conclusions and a few remarks(Yes, that is how it is spelled) ===================================================================== "There is no reason to believe that moral judgments can only be adequately made from a first-person perspective. Would you say that since Hitler thought the genocide of Jews was justified, then he is correct? Of course not - morality is not subjective and relative but rather objective (assuming it exists, of course)." Sure. You judge that what Hitler did, was not correct, was not justified. However, this is because you are the ultimate moral judge of your own beliefs, as well as beliefs from other people. Hitler, on the other hand(And those who were under him), believed that what he was doing, was the correct thing, and that his extermination of the Jews was justified. I agree with you. I say that Hitler was wrong. But that is only because I judge Hitler by my own moral standards. I made the decision from my first-person perspective. The problem here, is that my opponent is claiming that moral judgment can depend on things other than a first-person perspective. Therefore, I ask my opponent what other possible perspective exists for a person to which an adequate decision can be made, that does not rely upon a first-person perspective. "Since my opponent has failed to capture even the topic of our discussion, I will say no further until he can make a comeback." As I have already addressed this, I do not want to pick too much on this specific issue. However, I believe that we have adequately moved beyond the issue of "Prescriptive/descriptive", therefore I am looking forward to continuing with this debate.