Morality is fair

"My opponent believes that because it is created by human beings but that does nothing to negate the fact that the nature of moral decisions are ones that tend to be fair. I do not contend that morality is absolute but that its creation was to ensure people would make decisions that are more fair"Fairness is exclusively a matter of perspective. If it is a matter of perspective it is inherently an opinion not a fact. How can it be a fact when Pro even admitted in the United States the morality on slavery changed? If the morality regarding the subject of slavery can be changed how can morality indefinitely be fair? Previously the morality behind slavery was not fair to those whom were enslaved. Even Pro admits morality is not absolute so it can not be fair because it is a matter of perspective as I just demonstrated." I believe my opponent missed the point in my example of slavery. People were not showing morality by owning slaves but when morality was applied slavery was abolished. People began to ask themselves if it was fair to own another human being and deny them all rights."Pro has only shown a certain morality which he considers acceptable. Pro thinks slavery is morally wrong. There are others who think otherwise and history has shown this[1]. Pro is claiming that abolishing slavery is absolutely moral and to maintain it is not moral. But didn't Pro say earlier, " I do not contend that morality is absolute." So how can Pro make the claim the abolishment of slavery is exclusively moral while implying having slaves is immoral. Pro has already shown he does not have the authority or that he believes in such an authority to hand down such an absolute claim. Therefore he has only shown that abolishing slavery is moral from his views on morality only. [1]http://www.bbc.co.uk...I won't focus on this point too much because it is not too relevant to the debate. Pro believes that slave owners ended slavery. In the United States, this did not happen[2]. A minor event called the American Civil War took place that resulted in half a million casualties which ended slavery not slave owners. Slavery did not end because the slave owners decided to change their morals.[2]http://www.bbc.co.uk..."An employee has the chance to steal some merchandise from their employer but they decide it would not be morally acceptable. In this example the employer is the one who has the most power and yet the employee still makes a morally upstanding decision. They determine that stealing is not fair just because they have the opportunity."Who says it is not morally acceptable for the employee to steal? I would argue from the employee's perspective it is fair and moral for him to steal. The employee is benefiting himself by stealing. Of course the employer wouldn't like this nefarious act. But why should the employee care? What Pro really is insisting is a certain type of morality which he subscribes to. But he has already admitted it is not absolute. So how can Pro prove it is fair? He does not believe ,orality is absolute so morality is based on opinions according to him. If something is moral for one how can we distinguish what is not moral for another? Morality cannot be fair because it is based on opinionated talk. "Both morality and fairness are beliefs that are man made so it has to be judged on a case by case basis to determine if the decision made was moral and fair because there is no absolution in either.""Judged by a case by case basis," interesting. Who would have the authority to dictate the absolute claim for what is moral and what is not? For example, my opponent and I agree on 50% of the issues currently. But we disagree on Euthanasia. I assume Pro would claim that Euthanasia is moral and fair. I tend to think otherwise because I don't think it is fair or moral in many cases. So how can he determine that his opinion is fair and mine is not? That is a matter of opinion exclusively. "This definition reaffirms my position on fairness because these are scenarios that do not require any absolution."The definitions speak for themselves. Pro has only shown his morals and his views of what fairness is not any form of absolute morals or fairness. Let us look at the definitions of fairness that Pro has posted in his argument and analyze what is said. If you look at the first definition, it says " in accordance with the rules or standards." So who makes the rules to be "fair"? That is a matter of opinion only. The second definition, "just or appropriate in the circumstances." Who determines what is just? Once again, an opinion from human only according to Pro.The third definition, "without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage."Who determines what is an unjust advantage? That would be whoever determines what is just. According to Pro, it is not a god or the gods, so it must be man made. Therefore we are left to the opinion of those with the ability enforce their form of morality and their form of fairness.Morality is not fair. The best example of this is right here on this website. I'm referring to the RFDs. There will be some debates where someone may votebomb. Some would consider it moral or just for a moderator to intervene and throw out said vote. Is this fair for a moderator to throw out a vote? Let us use a more contemptible example. What happens if the moderator is friends with one of the participants of a debate and just decides to throw out votes he doesn't like? Nothing will happen to the moderator because he is the supreme authority on RFDs. Is this fair? From the party that suffers from the lost votes, it is not fair. Fairness is relative to perspective, it is a matter of opinion not a fact.