All Morals are Relative

==Clarification== My opponent's argument that a moral must be, by definition, universal in order to be objective is nonsensical. The only requirement for a moral (a standard for determining right and wrong) to be objective (and not relative) is for it to be viewed independently. A moral is not, by definition, the result of an individual perception of right and wrong, but a tool used for that purpose. A moral is absolute, by definition, if it comes from an objective viewpoint. "In order to prove that that/those moral(s) is/are in fact absolute, then he must show that they do not conform to the same standards that I have set up in my arguments. " This statement only holds if the standards my opponent standards are indeed applicable to the definitions provided. ==Definition of Morality== My opponent has defined a morality as "our ability to determine what is right and what is wrong" without any source in the middle of an argument. My opponent will argue that his source was in round 2 where he defined moral (adjective, definition 2) as "able to distinguish right from wrong and to make decisions based on that knowledge"; however, my opponent has not correctly quoted from his source [1], which reads "based on what somebody's conscience suggests is right or wrong. " This is a limited definition for the purpose of this debate because under it all morals must by definition necessarily be relative (dependent on something [2], in this case on the individual conscience). Even ignoring this, the translation between these words is unwarranted. An actual sourced definition for morality is "a doctrine or system of morals" [3], where "morals" is a plural noun meaning "principles of right and wrong as they govern standards of general or sexual behavior," from my opponent's source [1]. From no source, however, is the meaning of morality "our ability to determine what is right and what is wrong. " ==Morals do not cease to be morals when governments use them== I'm going to drop the argument that the UN cannot decide what human rights are because it is simply irrelevant to the resolution. I will save that for another debate. The relevant clash here is that my opponent sees some definitional contradiction that keeps my moral standard from being a moral standard. A right is, by my opponent's chosen definition, something due to someone by (in this case) law, whereas a moral is a way to determine whether a behavior is right or wrong. My standard, "An action is moral if it does not interfere with the freedom of an individual to govern his person and property", is a moral. A government may protect the right, "The individual is free to govern his person and property", but this does not negate that my standard is a moral. ==Alleged Limitations to My Standard== My opponent claims that my standard fails because some people disagree with it. A moral can be absolute (found objectively) without being universal (agreed upon by all), so my opponent's objection is irrelevant. My opponent also claims that my standard fails because the mother's ability to abort her fetus interferes with the fetus's ability to govern itself. However, the fetus has no ability to govern itself in the first place, and does not qualify as an individual because it lack self-governance in its natural state (see derivation), so my opponent's objection is moot. ==Derivation== My opponent claims that I have not presented a derivation. I would like to direct him to the first round. When I state that the derivation does not rely on utilitarianism, then my opponent should simply reread it as directed without the utilitarianism (the first paragraph and the last paragraph starting with "or we can pull the utilitarian argument"). My opponent has not objected to this non-utilitarian part of the derivation other than to claim it is not there. The Utilitarian stance, however, is only challenged by my opponent's argument that pleasure arguments can justify homicide; however, the happiness lost in homicide by the loss of the victim's ability to govern himself according to his or her own priorities is significantly greater than the satisfaction that the murderer feels. My opponent's objection is simply narrow-minded and ignorant of the derivation itself. ==My Opponent's Contradictions== I believe that the statements "Taxing someone on a video game is perfectly moral to help people in need" and "All Morals are Relative" are in direct contradiction. My opponent can claim that I misquoted him all he wants, but it's right in his own arguments that he has made a moral claim. I have merely asked him to back it up with an ethical argument. An explanation as to how it is compatible with moral relativism would be interesting too. ==Sex== My opponent's claim regarding sex is dependent on the argument that morals must be universal to be objective, even though this is not necessarily true by the definitions. This topic shall not be argued in two places. Refer to my refutations to my opponent's case below. ==Moral Evolution== My opponent concedes that determinism is irrelevant to this debate. Moral evolution is irrelevant to the absoluteness of my standard of morality because a moral is not required by definition to be universal (used by all) to be absolute (viewed independently). My opponent does not challenge that "Human self-governance has not changed, and therefore not all morals have evolved. " Therefore, the concept of moral evolution is also not applicable to my standard. ==Human Knowledge== My opponent bases this objection on a still unsourced definition of morality. ==Conclusion== The self-governance principle is arrived at objectively and can be used for determining right and wrong in any moral dilemma. Therefore, it is an absolute moral, and therefore, at least one moral isn't relative, and the resolution is negated. [1] . http://encarta.msn.com... [2] . http://encarta.msn.com... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com...