Moral Relativism is philosophically weak

"I MIGHT NOT LIKE IT, BUT I CAN NOT JUSTIFY IT AS RIGHT OR WRONG." And thus you can't escape the inescapable conclusion of right and wrong that ALL of us know. You can attempt to rationalize away the face of morality, but you can't escape from it on a deep level of emotion. The mere fact that we have such concept of right or wrong could only be understood ultimately in absolute terms, for how else could we have established a baseline for what is or isn't morally reprehensible in relative terms. Think about it. Its so blindingly obvious, just on the intellectual level alone, that one who would describe themselves as pragmatic is doing so under a false illusion. "we, as human, don't want harm to come to ourselves. We make agreements not to harm each other." But you simply defer the ultimate question and attempt to hide it elsewhere. You no sooner answer the question of why harm is inextricably bad. You use terms like "violated" in order to give us some understanding, presumably unaware that every time you attempt to explain morality in relative terms, you unwittingly use them in absolute terms. Its a sleight of hand maneuver. You take away the absolute with the left hand, and then give it back with the right under the guise of relativism. "there is no reason why his preference is right or wrong." There's no reason why someone's preference to either butchering babies or not butchering babies? This isn't a "preference," Geekis. We aren't talking about going to an ice cream shop and deciding what flavor you would like. Its an absurd and horribly deluded notion that these are mere contrivances of the flippant. The evidence abounds with the moral law within, all of which can be testified by the human conscience. The fact that it is so pervasive from culture to culture is damning evidence that just such a law exists. Indeed it the very foundation of laws. All laws stem from a moral framework. There is always a "moral" to the law. These aren't merely utilitarian. But let me ask you a question: If morals are relative, and there exists no absolute framework from morals, then all of morality boils down to opinion, or preference, as you say. Is it right to subject a murderer to OUR opinions when we imprison him? Is it right to esteem one opinion over another? Obviously the murderer feels justified for having murdered. And if there is no actual basis for why one preference is absolute, then shouldn't all opinions be just as valid as another? How is it right to foist our morals on the murderer? "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." What is this based off of, anecdotal evidence? Some people subvert the law, therefore there is no law in actuality? Its counter-intuitive and counter-productive, as the very purpose of the law is to protect a moral in absolute terms. "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." Which is completely consistent with the debate. I'm simply putting this convoluted theory to the test. If none of them are wrong, then what is it inside of you that stirs with anger for either one? Think it through. "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." Prove that they aren't, and you will do the same. Here's the problem: Such things cannot be empirically proven like some Newtonian law of nature. Its like the age old debate about God. Neither side can empirically prove the existence or non-existence of God. At most, they can employ reason for why their claim is true and the other is false. Its the same in a courtroom. It is by the gathering of evidence that either frees or condemns a man along with persuasive arguments of the defense and prosecution. But often we cannot know empirically all the details of what transpired. But then, its very much like thoughts, isn't it? Can you prove to me, empirically that you have "thoughts." You would likely say, before I let the cat out of the bag, of course I can! You might likely point to brain activity under an MRI. That in no way proves the existence of thoughts empirically. Indeed the best qualifier for how we know we have thoughts first comes from WITHIN. The fact that you have thoughts is the first evidence of their existence. Other people give telltale signs so that you deduce the existence of thoughts as being axiomatic. Well, it is also so with morality. We can't sit here and empirically prove such things. But we all know what the answer is in the deepest recesses of the mind. To deny that is a pernicious lie. "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." What it proved was that it cannot function in any society, which, consequently, is the ONLY purpose of morality to a relativist. Again, was it wrong to cain the person for the crime? Was it right to let them go? What reasons would we have for basing it off of anything else, if it were not understood in absolute terms? "a moral relativist recognizes that there is no objective or absolute reasoning that makes their morality superior to anybody else's" And yet the judge and juries deliberation is esteemed higher than the alleged criminal. Obviously there is justification, and justice cries out for it! "moral relativism recognizes the truth of there being no moral absolutes. So, since we have truth, we obviously don't have nothing" That makes no sense, as it is a non-sequitur. You have done nothing to support your case. In fact, what relativism does is hides in a sea of ambiguity and then says, 'aha!, see I have shown you." That isn't even remotely compelling. The newest theme in order to explain what we know to be true, the moral law within us, is to explain it by heredity -- what the Nazi's referred to as "blood and soil." Truth has been subverted by an agnosticism. What do I mean? You may not be aware of it, but your argument is tantamount to the pride of not knowing about a moral absolute, that way you can't be culpable. What you have presented is a "social contract," that the only reason why morals exist is because of practical reasons. Of course you are unaware that it still begs the question, and you have not, and indeed cannot, answer the question with any semblance of honesty. Its just a constant deferral. When a ship goes in to high seas, there are 3 questions it must answer: 1. Why it is out to sea in the first place. 2. How to keep from sinking. 3. How to keep from colliding with other ships. The first question answers essential ethics. The second answer individual ethics -- how to keep from self-destruction. The third asks social ethics -- how to keep from the imposition of others. But unless you really know why you're out there in the first place, keeping from bumping in to others is merely a secondary notion. In closing, moral relativity is attractive to people who do not want to answer the first question, and indeed may not know how. The answer, however, is so incredibly simple. Philosophically there must be moral absolutes, even if we cannot definitively determine WHICH morals are absolute. There is no basis for having contrived any morals if there was not first a baseline. And you can't have one without the other. Reason alone proves this.