Moral Relativism is philosophically weak

"THERE IS NO TRUE OR PROVABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR MURDER BEING RIGHT OR WRONG." So if I took a baby, lets say its your baby, for the sake of the argument, and I butchered that baby before your eyes, is there any justification for saying that what I have done was wrong? See, something has to give here. You can't deny the fact that, intrinsically, nearly 98.5% of the human population would say it is wrong. Where then does such a unanimous and intrinsic understanding come from? People who say that it is wrong, just not absolutely wrong, then cannot explain why so many people would find it so morally reprehensible. Where did such a consensus come from that crosses over many different cultures and ages? Some would attribute it to social norms, as a person learns what is reprehensible. Of course, it still does nothing to explain why people were to have ever thought of it as such, but for now, let us defer this question. If the butchering a baby were due to social norms, then it would stand to reason that a child under the age of, say, 5 years old, is not affected by such societal influences. But surely if we were to show that young child another child being butchered, the appropriate horror would come over their face, thus corroborating just how innate it is within us. "PHILOSOPHY IS A TOOL THAT WE USE TO SEEK TRUTH. IF THE TRUTH IS THAT THERE ARE NO MORAL ABSOLUTES, THEN MORAL RELATIVISM (OR EVEN NIHILISM) IS, IN FACT, THE STRONGEST PHILOSOPHY." There are a number of inconsistencies here. Allow me to debunk each one individually to further solidify my premise that moral relativism is indeed philosophically weak. You say that philosophy is a tool to seek truth. I couldn't agree more. However, you speak of moral relativism in such a way that would tacitly indicate that it is truth. Truth then is absolute. If truth is absolute, then how can moral relativism follow suit? Moral relativism is not true for the simple fact that it does not claim any truth. That's the whole point, in fact! What may be morally good and just to me, may be morally unjust to you. And according to you, neither can be right or wrong -- just two opposing opinions vying for consensus. Secondly, you smuggle in nihilism as a way to also show that truth can be uncovered using it. This is a complete contradiction, as the very definition of nihilism is that truth claims cannot be determined whatsoever, which is absolutely damning to your debate! Thirdly, you state that the moral relativity is the actually the strongest philosophy. But your reasoning is an attempt to take the safest position possible, which is tantamount to, "I don't know," and then claiming strength in its complete and total ambiguity. Not withstanding the contradictions alone in illustrating perfectly the very weakness I speak of, you then assert that the weakness is actually its strength. How can you reconcile the irreconcilable? Next question: Would it be considered barbarism to throw stones at someone because of the dictates of someone's religion (superstition)? Answering the question will invariably lead you in to an impasse. If you say that it is not wrong, then by what justification do you even have to refer to it as wrong, whether by relative or absolute terms? Isn't interesting that when we explain morality, it is always done so under the terms of it being true on an absolute level. If I say that it is right to stone someone to death, those are my morals and I would be entitled to them. If you say that it is not wrong, then I shall stone to my hearts content. Mustn't one have a baseline of morality in order to establish their own? By what mechanism does this come? Lets say you visit Singapore. You are unaware that it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk (which is an actual law in Singapore, btw). The punishment for such an infraction is being caned with a four foot bamboo cane, three inches in diameter. Now, lets say that this judge is deciding to up the ante a bit in order to set an example. He is sick and tired of Westerner's coming to his country and spitting on their soil. But Westerner's just keep on doing it. So, for future deterrence, the punishment is now being caned to death. You are horrified and feel that the punishment is grossly improportionate to the crime. You plead that it is immoral, according to your customs and traditions, to be so severely punished for something you do all the time back home. And it all would seem so silly to you had your very life not been on the line over, what you perceive, to be such a spurious crime. But at the same time, you just so happen to be an activist, which is why you were in Singapore in the first place. You are there in defense of the Singaporean government against the American government who are currently appealing the Singaporean courts to spare the lives of one of their servicemen who has been sentenced for a similar crime. You were there because you hate how America always uses its foreign policies in such a way that sickens you. You can't stand how they stick their nose in everyone else's business, as if they were the self-assigned Big Brother to the rest of the world. Now, I just gave you about 18 extenuating circumstances to try and dissect for you to contemplate your guilt or innocence. Are you going to stand by laurels or are you going to hypocritically cave in to spare your own life? This, is moral relativism -- an unlivable dead end. There are not only easy answers, but impossible one's. What is the meaning of justice without an absolute truth? There is no right or wrong. There is no point of reference. You can't trust other people's judgments, much less, your own thoughts. You are a vessel tossed about in a sea of disorder. You desperately wanted life to be capricious so that you could deal with the cold, hard realities of the world. And so you see yourself as water-- fluid, undulating-- never staying in the same spot, never able to identify itself with it surroundings. You are neither here nor there. You are indistinguishable in the same way you view life. You are a body of water inside an ocean of water, climbing a staircase of water, into a sky made of water. And at some point you ask, "Is this what life is? Is this all that it is? Do my own feelings betray me? The very thing I wanted to believe about life.... That its nothing." Unfortunately, this is the bleak reality that you believe exists, simply by default. Because without truth, there is nothing.