Moral absolutism does not explain moral judgments

My opponent asserts that my argument is off point, when in fact, it is absolutely (no pun intended) on topic. He simply chooses not to address my argumentation because he finds it inconvenient for his interpretation of the resolution. ************************* Some Responses: >> "If it cannot be shown that there is any kind of moral fact that comes about from natural properties (utilitarianism) or supersedes natural properties (intuitionism), that also is binding for all beings in situation x, then moral absolutism is incorrect. Therefore, my opponent has incorrectly categorized the debate." That conclusion doesn't follow from the premises... Furthermore, I have already posited the moral right to rational self interest as a natural property of being human that is binding for all humans, which fulfills the obligations of my opponent's statement. >> "Actually, utilitarianism is a naturalistic attempt at moral absolutism" This seems to be a silly notion, considering all utilitarian analysis carries the normative weights of whoever is analyzing the system - for example, one might consider a baby to have more "value" than a criminal. >> "Either way, the question on point, as he himself has framed it, is to provide an explanation as to how one could have knowledge of a morally absolute fact, and to presuppose that there already exists a morally absolute fact, however minimal, simply begs the question." I believe my opponent is asserting that Con is under the obligation to prove the moral right to rational self interest is absolute.... I shall do so in a few paragraphs... >> "First, it could be possible that a moral judgment is correct, iff (if and only if) there is a societal norm that dictates it's correctness." This position ignores that there are some moral judgments that transcend societal norms, such as "no wanton murder." >> "Similarly, when I make a moral judgment such as "it was wrong for Kenny to rape that little boy," what I am really saying is that I disapprove of Kenny's actions in a non-cognitive way." This position appeals to a relativistic understanding of semantics that mucks about in the definitional and moral import of language. Not very compelling... ********************************** On Moral Absolutes: Moral absolutes are discoverable by asking oneself a series of questions about the nature of morality.. Consider: 1. Is morality authority independent? >> Obviously not - if your parents, or even GOD, told you murder was right, it would still be wrong. 2. Is morality relative? >> Obviously not - nobody seriously thinks murder is morally acceptable depending on where you are. Anybody that DOES believe this simply has an incorrect belief. 3. Is morality situational? >> Of course, but this is not a threat. Consider the case of lying to a Nazi when he asks if you harbor a Jew. Lying is immoral, but the act of saving the poor Jew is far more MORAL than the act of lying is IMMORAL. Furthermore, it would be IMMORAL to tell the truth to the Nazi, thus, in this situation, lying must be MORAL. Moral absolutes play on motive and objectives of the actor, not the particulars of the situation. 4. Is morality created (i.e. a social construct)? >> Obviously not, else at some point, morality would have been "created" as it were, by a society (or by evolution in some views). It is far more compelling that morality exists as a set of absolutes and that moral actors simply evolved to a high enough state to recognize these laws. These four questions show that morality is not dependent on authority (the government can't make moral laws), not relative (murder can't be morally acceptable in France), situational, but applicable to motive (Lying to the Nazi is moral, not immoral), and last, that it is not created (society cannot make morals; moral actors simply recognize moral law). **************************** Short Arguments for Moral Absolutism: 1. The "Aim" of Morality is Absolute. The objective of moral consideration is to discover what is "right." This objective cannot be met my moral relativism because what is "right" depends on who you ask. The meaning of "right" is completely lost on moral relativism. The language of morality ("That is RIGHT; This is REPREHENSIBLE") further indicates that relativistic considerations of morality would not yield any answers. 2. Moral Relativism is a Contradiction in Terms. When moral relativists make a claim, they assert that X is right. However, by the same token, they must also accept that X is wrong, given someone with a normative moral theory that suggests so. Thus, all the relativists have accomplished is to argue over whose normative moral theory agrees with absolute moral law. Moral relativism does not deliver a sense of morality qua morality - it simply provides a convenient excuse for the differences in normative theories... ***************************** On the Right to Rational Self-Interest and its Moral Import. My opponent seems to be confused as to what a basic right is. The fact of a right's existence is completely different from the fact of its moral import. This debate concerns the moral import of these rights, NOT their existence. However, the two notions are somewhat interdependent. For example, it is perfectly logical to say that it is a basic right to have freedom of opinion and that this carries no moral import. Opinions cannot be forcibly changed, and thus the statement carries no moral import because it is not wrong to attempt to change (remember, you cannot FORCE) one's opinion. On the other hand, the assertion that one has a rational right to self interest carries the moral import of non-interference in others' right to the same. If it did not carry that moral import, it would not be wrong to violate another's right to self-determination, and thus, the concept would not be a RIGHT. All violable rights carry moral import by virtue of being rights in a similar fashion to how the term bachelor carries the values of "unmarried" and "male" by virtue of one's being a bachelor. ************************** Thus, it is clear that if one has a rational right to self-determination, this would include a normative moral theory that explains all moral judgments. The resolution is negated. ************************** Furthermore, I have given arguments (and counterarguments) that show the nature of morality itself is not relative. Morality is authority independent, works at the level of motive and objective, is not relative, and is not "created." This delivers the notion that morality transcends all attempts to confine it to the anthropomorphic particulars of one's life, time, and location. Differences in moral opinion represent differences in considerations of absolute moral law. For example, the notion that murder is morally acceptable in France is simply incorrect reasoning, not relative morality. The resolution is negated. ************************** While I recognize that the two versions of absolute morality above are mutually exclusive, if the reader finds either of them compelling, they are sufficient to negate the resolution. Both of the above systems incorporate absolute moral law, and both are obviously capable of explaining both the fact that moral judgments are made, as well as differences in judgment concerning the same moral situation. NEGATED.