All morality is subjective

I look forward to an intriguing and informative debate. -First off I would like to quickly clarify my position. I advocate the position of metaethical moral relativism. "The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons. " - I apologize for altering the terms of my debate, but I do not believe this will serve as a hindrance in any way. I will now present the most incisive and thought-provoking arguments in favor of moral relativism. Opening Statements: -In a sense, morality may be objective; however, this objectivity is relative to independent cultures and societies as they transform due to the temporal disintegration that inevitably occurs and culminates in their upheaval, as all civilizations do. The objectivity of their moral principles die with their society. Every society, culture, civilization, tradition, political agenda, etc. that institutes a moral code or principle has the authority to do so within the confines of their domain, as in their followers or constituents. They all possess a different conceptual scheme, and as all conceptual schemes are incommensurable, the ability to speak of morality in concrete terms is greatly diminished. -The absence of a god or ultimate entity who possesses the capability of judging morality from an unbiased perspective allows for morality itself to be relative. The society is the entity that determines the morality of its people, and as all societies possess equal merit, the implemented moral codes all possess equal merit. Contention 1: Cultural Diversity -The vast amount of cultures that exist, or have ever existed, all espouse, however similar they may appear, different ethical principles. The fact that no two societies implement the exact same moral code leads to a diminished possibility of their being a true, universal system of morality and ethics. If there is an absolute, universal moral code, then why do multiple views concerning what one should do in an ethical dilemma exist? Would mankind not already have discovered the correct path to take in a moral conundrum. The argument of diversity is not a conclusive one, it does specifically outlaw the possibility of an absolute moral code; however, the increased skepticism does not nothing to promote the likelihood that one exists. -Another point that I need to make is that although various moral codes exist, this does not directly outlaw the existence of a universally binding moral system. The burden of proof for anyone advocating a universal moral code is tasked with explaining what a universal moral code would be. The comparison can be made to religion. The plethora of religions that have and will exist in the past and present do not directly point to one being the true and infallible religion that all must adhere to. Another issue is the impossibility of defining what this moral code would look like, and how one can be objectively determined. Contention 2: Lack of an objective, unbiased observer - In order for a moral truth to be deemed "absolutely" true, there must be an universal lawgiver who has the authority to ordain a moral principle as "right" or "wrong". Without divine sanction, the only possible alternative would be to establish a universal moral code based off of secular principles. The "enlightenment project" as it has been dubbed by Alasdair MacIntyre, seeks to do just that. The issue with this is the fact that all the subsequent philosophers, such as Kant and Mill, disagree on what this absolute moral code should be. This inability does nothing to promote the chances of one existing in reality. -A distinction must be made between value judgments and factual statements. Every moral principle is established based off of at least one value-laden judgment. These moral presuppositions are categorically different from any justifiable moral principle, thus disallowing any possibility of valid proof to be asserted. "For example, an argument to prove that a husband should not beat his wife will probably rest on the assumption that men and women should enjoy equal rights. But how does one prove this to someone who categorically denies it? How does one prove that the intrinsic value of happiness should be the foundation of our moral judgments to someone who thinks that family honor is the most important value of all? Or how does one prove that individual rights are a primary good to someone whose theoretical bottom line is that individuals should be subservient to the state? " -This is copied directly from one source that I will cite at the end of opening arguments. The above paragraph elucidates exactly what I am attempting to prove in contentions. Happiness and honor are both placed on a pedestal above the other due to a prefigured and predetermined disposition, as opposed to any inherent truth possessed by either one. The same applies to the discrepancy over individual rights versus subservience. Augmenting the importance of one over the other is the result of one"s own personal inclination, not the result of adherence to universal moral system. -Science is a great example of convergence, there exists a global acceptance of methodology, data, theories, and conclusions. The reality of this creates, in essence, an independent, objective system that operates within the realm of natural science. Within morality and ethics, no such system exists. The line between moral codes enacted by various countries tend to be blurred by overlap on some issues, and divergence on others. Syllogism illustrating the aforementioned train of thought: (1) Let A and B be two cultural groups, and let p be any moral judgment. For this example, let p refer to the belief that female excision (circumcision) is morally permissible. (2) A and B disagree over p. (A thinks that p is true; B thinks that p is false. ) (3) Therefore, (2) p is true for group A and p is false for group B. -The ebb and flow of the moral zeitgeist eliminates moral codes as others are built up. Contention 3: Cognitive relativism -According to this stance, the truth value of any moral principle is relative to a conceptual scheme or theoretical framework, which would the culture or society in question. The other claim espoused by those who advocate this form of moral relativism is that no society is metaphysically privileged over any other. There is no objective reality, or society in which all other moral systems are derived from. The value of a truth claim is not obtained from an independent, or objective reality; instead, the truth or falsity of a moral principle is achieved when it is enacted in accordance with one"s, or the society"s, with the perceptions, values, assumptions, or beliefs of said entity. The moral principle in question is determined by its rationality and justifiability is coherent with the surrounding conceptual scheme. -An example of this would be the heliocentric world view, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun. This idea is false in accordance with a dark ages framework, but is true for in accordance with our modern conceptual scheme. -To provide an ethical scenario would be an assertion such as "homosexuality is moral". The claim would be false for fundamental, conservative Christians; however, such a claim is true for twenty-first century liberals. This example and the previous one are analogous one another. Sources: . http://plato.stanford.edu... . http://www.iep.utm.edu... . http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org... -Thank you to my opponent for taking part in this debate. I look forward to hearing your contentions and supporting statements and subsequent rebuttals.