Moral Naturalism is more compelling than Moral Relativism

Now I would like to note to my opponent moral naturalism is (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy):"the label is more usually reserved for naturalistic forms of moral realism according to which there are objective moral facts and properties and these moral facts and properties are natural facts and properties" Natural Law Ethics(or Neo-Aristotelian naturalism)l is specifically what I am defending which is very similar to moral law ethics, so my opponent should know it is not inconsistent with Supernaturalism as C. S. Lewis might say. Rebuttal: (1) Is-ought fallacy What constitutes a good knife? One that cuts well obviously. What constitutes a bad knife? One that does not cut well. An agent that performs its function well or telos is a good agent. For example, In order for agent A to accomplish B, A must reasonably do C. The function of human agents as a whole is act rationally according to Aristotle. The function of the mind is to produce rational thoughts a mind that doesn't is considered a bad mind. Anything can be considered on basis of telos can find it"s good. What is right depends on the goal. But as Aristotle defined men, in order to be moral must act rationally. Morality is rationality. My opponent seems to think that because rationality is objective and non-changing in cannot be based on function. As Contradiction once said "Given a teleological account of human nature, there is no fact-value distinction, for value is built into fact from the very beginning. If the purpose of eyes is that they see, then it follows straightforwardly given their telos that eyes which see well are good eyes. Nature is not merely descriptive, but also prescriptive. "Ought" claims are not derived from "is" claims, but present to begin with". (2) The grounding problem The problem with Moral Relativism is instead of solving the grounding problem ignores it resolving it as incoherent. It resolves moral propositions as subjective mores. Moral Law ethics resolves that good is features of the objective world and it depends on the function. The fact is that moral laws do exist and moral relativism the problem for the moral relativist is they have no good answer to the question: Is there anything wrong with anything, and why? Absent this thing, morals/ethics simply becomes emotive. Rape, for example, can never be deemed wrong; the strongest statement that can be made about rape is "I don"t like it. " Moral Relativism is cannot justify itself, supposing that many morality exists has no validity on what is actually true. By dogmatically asserting that there is no truth, people have become close-minded to the possibility of knowing truth, if in fact it does exist. The problem is that Relativism usually presents itself as an interpretation of moral disagreements: It is said to be the best explanation of rationally irresolvable moral disagreements. However, once moral truth is regarded as relative, the disagreements seem to disappear. For example, someone in X who affirms S is saying suicide is right for persons in X, while someone in Y who denies S is saying suicide is not right for persons in Y. (Stanford) Moral Naturalism seems more plausible than Moral Relativism. Moral laws are defined in terms of the function of the agent and needn"t appeal to metaphysical state nor deny the ethical norms. Oakum"s razor seems to destroy not only Relativism but Realism/Objectivism in the process. The axiom problem is solved and doesn"t necessitate an infinite regress. Moral Relativism by comparison is unjustified tolerance mechanism rather than anything that is true. Works Cited "Caleb's Path - Robin Schumacher's Blog. " The Problems with Moral Relativism. N. p. , n. d. Web. 09 Nov. 2012. <. http://calebspath.blogspot.com...;. "Ethical Theory: Classical and Contemporary Readings [Hardcover]. " Ethical Theory: Classical and Contemporary Readings: Louis P. Pojman: 9780534529611: Amazon. com: Books. N. p. , n. d. Web. 09 Nov. 2012. <. http://www.amazon.com...;. MacIntyre, Alasdair C. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 2007. Print. "Moral Relativism. " (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). N. p. , n. d. Web. 09 Nov. 2012. <. http://plato.stanford.edu...;.