morality is not absolute

I would like to start off by thanking doctorDeku for his quick and interesting response with that in mind lets begin: my opponents observations: 1) I'm willing to accept the BOP 2) As previously mentioned I accept 3) The problem with allowing my opponent to use broad theories is the abusive potential for example if we accept this to be true he could simple state the any action which leads to "good" is moral. By restricting this debate to individual or collective actions he is forced to actually demonstrate that there are actions that are universally moral or immoral. However if my opponent agrees to avoid such abusive tactics he can feel free to included broader philosophical theories. With this in mind I will begin addressing my opponents contentions before moving on to reinforce my own: contention 1)Interpretation is irelevant: Observations A and B are not very relevant so I will simply be addressing C. c. Interpreting morality is the same as interpreting literature, if we are to agree that morality exists then there must be some ultimate standard for what morality is. Accordingly alternative interpretations for morality do not change the fact that there is already another true standard for what is moral or immoral. My opponent begins with a clear Argument from ignorance where he simply assumes that ultimate standard flows from existence without any justification. Furthermore simply because morality serves a purpose does not imply the that purpose is objective. If in fact there where some objective standard for morality it should have been almost universally accepted by the majority of society's throughout the ages but the fact that there are so many alternative theories attempting to determine what morality is implies subjectivity. To conclude existence does not imply an objective purpose and this is supported by the lack of unanimous consensus on morality. Contention 2: Morality is not consequential- a. It is moral not to steal. If there is an object which belongs to another person, I have no right in taking that object away from that person; for me to violate that standard would be an immoral action. b. Necessity doesn't indicate morality. If I am a poor man and will die if I do not eat, it does not make stealing the bread of another moral. It may very well be a justified action, especially if the person I'm stealing from has wronged me has plenty of bread to eat themselves -- however justification does not equate morality. c. The moral standard of stealing does not change based on the necessity of the action. Even if we were to consider something permissible or necessary that does not make it a moral action. If something is wrong in one instance than it is wrong in another. Morality tells us the "shoulds" of life. For example if I was deciding whether or not I wanted to cheat on my wife with Megan fox morality would tell me I shouldn't(Though I probably would anyway). Therefore if killing infants led to an overall positive to society that action is not only justified but morally required since society "should" do it in order to achieve the most good as per the utilitarian perspective. Therefore since "should" depends entirely on the context of a scenario we must assume that morality is indeed consequential. Contention 3: Morality exists- a. If I had a blunt object inside a cardboard box, one which I had never seen before, that blunt object would still exist despite my ability or inability to see it. b. If by shaking the box I could find clues as to what was inside the box, I could very well develop a better understanding of what was inside the box. I may not know for certain what was inside the box, but I could develop a pretty good idea. c. My interpretation of what is inside the box may very well be different from the interpretation of another. One of use mat be right and the other wrong, or both of us could be wrong; our interpretation of what is in the box does not change the object inside the box. My opponent again attempts to claim that existence implies universal shape. However to borrow his box analogy lets say the object in the box is liquid. This means that it could be constantly shifting form and never retaining a consistent shape. This "shape" is entirely dependent on the holder of the box, If he holds it upside down it will take a different form then if he holds it upright. Similarly morality depends on how individual society's view it which is why there are so many competing theories as to what is moral. Now I will revisit my own contentions in order to reinforce them. contention 1: utilitarianism My opponent states that justification does not equate to morality. However when I addressed his consequential contention I demonstrated that when an act results in a overall public good then any action required to achieve set good is morally required not only justified. Contention 2: pragmatic ethics My opponent states that different assumption about what morality does not mean it is not absolute. However as I demonstrated with his box analogy morality is a shapeless object it simply conforms to societal views which we are able to determine from the multitude of moral theories in existence.