Moral Relativism is philosophically weak

"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. " I said I can't justify it as right or wrong. This does not lead to any inescapable "face of morality". In fact, quite the contrary, since it is not justifieid either way. "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." No. It's not from absolutist terms. It's from preferential terms. That is what is so blindingly obvious and what you are ignoring. We set up systems of morality because we have preferences for things to work out a certain way. There is nothing absolute about these systems. "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." I never said that harm was bad. I said that humans generally ddon't want harm. Once again, it's a matter of preferences, not a matter of absolutes. And "violated" isn't an absolutist term. We set up systems that are relative. When these RELATIVE systems are violated, these terms are no longer absolute. "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." And you're building a straw man. "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." Why isn't it just going to an ice cream shop and picking a flavor? Our systems of morality (which are all RELATIVE) come from our preferences. They reflect what we want. And just because a lot of people view something a certain way does not make it absolutely correct. What's popular isn't always right. What's right isn't always popular. (Of coruse, nothing is right or wrong, anyway. But you get the point. It's a logical fallacy to say that everyone agrees on something, so it therefore must be right.) "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." No. Laws stem from self-preservation. They come from a desire for stability. You never answered the claim about the social contracdt. This is where a system of laws comes into play because we want protection, whether protection is right or wrong. "ut 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?" Why do you ask me questions when you know how I'll answer? It is neither right nor wrong. You can give no absolute evidence for either side. IT is not right. It is not wrong. It is only pragmatic or non-pragmatic. "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." First of all, your attack made no sense. Second, laws come from protecting people's preferences, not some moral absolute. "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." Your personal preference stirs the anger. But what about the person who believes in stoning? Their anger isn't stirred. Why? Because of their personal preference. There is no innate moral absolute guiding everyone to the same conclsion. If that was true, we'd all be at the same conclusion. "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." Of course I can't disprove the existence of moral absolutes completely. But Russel's Teapot. The burden of proof does not lie on the skeptic. It is up to you to prove moral absolutes. Otherwise, you default to the negative. "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." You're claiming that we all know what is morally right. But if that was true, then there wouldn't be such a plurality of moral systems. Stoning would either be right or wrong. There would be no division line between groups of people. AS for your next paragraph: QUIT ASKING ME THE SAME QUESTIONS. IT IS NEITHER RIGHT NOR WRONG. "And yet the judge and juries deliberation is esteemed higher than the alleged criminal. Obviously there is justification, and justice cries out for it!" How is there obviously justification? THERE IS NONE! JUSTICE DOES NOT CRY OUT FOR ANYTHING AS JUSTICE DOES NOT OBJECTIELY EXIST! "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." I'm not even going to point out the irony in you saying that my argument was a non-sequitur. "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." Once again, you can't prove that these absolutes actually exist,a nd the bruden of proof does not lie on the negative. "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." What question? I'm not avoiding anything. And as for your ship metaphor: I've answered the first question. Several times. It comes form preferences and pragmatism. That is the baseline. Furthermore, my opponent hsas not answered the claim to moral relativism's astounding strength in that a moral relativist is not bound by unjustified obligations. He can make the most pragmatic decision in every scenario, giving moral relativism not only astound philosophical strength, but also astounding applicable strength. My opponent keeps claiming that theese moral absolutes exist, and that it is innate with all of us. Yet if this was true, there would not be a plurality of moral systems. If this was true, children raised isolated from society would have understandin of these moral concepts. But they don't. This is an idea that has gone unanswered by my opponent thourhgout the debate. I have answered all of his arguments. He has worked around or completely ignored several of mine. Clearly, the CON has won this debate.