morality is not absolute

I will first present the Con stance, and then proceed to attack my opponent's arguments. --- Observation 1: Burden of Proof- As the instigator and framer of this debate, my opponent is the one responsible for proving the true. As such I as the contender will assume the power of presumption -- that is unless my opponent can show that morality is not absolute we must assume that it is. Observation 2: Morality Exists- My opponent has accepted my clarification that morality does in fact exist. As such he must show that interpreting morality by a standard that does not have an absolute constant is legitimawilte. Observation 3: Unreasonable Limitations- My opponent posits that in this debate we are dealing with morality related to isolated incidents not broader theories of morality. You must reject this as it unjustly limits my ground and was not established prior to my acceptance. As the Con my only burden is to disprove my opponent, however I do this is up to my discretion so long as I follow the three rules outlined in my opponent's first round. These things in mind, I now move onto my own arguments. Contention 1: Interpretation is irrelevant- a. When one writes a piece of literature, they have a message they mean to share with their readers. Whether the author is direct in their writing or not is unimportant, the fact remains that there is a purpose in the writing. b. When another reads the work of the aforementioned author, their interpretation will not change the original purpose of the literature. The author will still have a definite purpose in having written their work regardless of how another interprets it. c. Interpreting morality is the same as interpreting literature, if we are to agree that morality exists then there must be some ultimate standard for what morality is. Accordingly alternative interpretations for morality do not change the fact that there is already another true standard for what is moral or immoral. Contention 2: Morality is not consequential- a. It is moral not to steal. If there is an object which belongs to another person, I have no right in taking that object away from that person; for me to violate that standard would be an immoral action. b. Necessity doesn't indicate morality. If I am a poor man and will die if I do not eat, it does not make stealing the bread of another moral. It may very well be a justified action, especially if the person I'm stealing from has wronged me has plenty of bread to eat themselves -- however justification does not equate morality. c. The moral standard of stealing does not change based on the necessity of the action. Even if we were to consider something permissible or necessary that does not make it a moral action. If something is wrong in one instance than it is wrong in another. Contention 3: Morality exists- a. If I had a blunt object inside a cardboard box, one which I had never seen before, that blunt object would still exist despite my ability or inability to see it. b. If by shaking the box I could find clues as to what was inside the box, I could very well develop a better understanding of what was inside the box. I may not know for certain what was inside the box, but I could develop a pretty good idea. c. My interpretation of what is inside the box may very well be different from the interpretation of another. One of use mat be right and the other wrong, or both of us could be wrong; our interpretation of what is in the box does not change the object inside the box. d. Morality functions the same way; just because we are not able to clearly see and know what morality is, does not mean that morality changes based on our interpretations. Furthermore human interpretations of morality is not the end all definition for morality. If that were the case then morality would not exist, as it would just be a justification for the actions of man. --- Contention 1: Utilitarianism- My opponent makes a critical error in their argument, just because something is pragmatically permissible does not mean is moral. If murder is considered immoral under an classical framework, then is is still wrong under the consequentialist framework my opponent provides -- and just because the murder of these infants would save others doesn't mean that it would be moral. It may be justified just as capital punishment may be justified, but justification of an action does not make the action moral. Contention 2: pragmatic ethics- If anything this argument strengthens my own arguments, because societies evolve their outlook on morality continuously changes. But just like the blunt object in the box, morality doesn't change just because our viewpoint of it changes. I would like to take a moment to remind the readers that my opponent has agreed to the premise that morality does indeed exist; therefore he cannot interpret it as means of justification, but must show it as a consistent across all examples. Even if he only shows morality as a consistent in one culture, he must show that the standard of morality is an actual standard and not simply a means to make agents feel better about their actions. Contention 3: self preservation- My opponent makes a fatal error here in assuming that justified and moral are synonymous. They are not. First, cannibalism isn't a justified means of survival; if one must take the life of another human being in order to sustain their own then their action is not a moral action. My opponent will have to show a better example before this is even a legitimate argument. Aside from that my opponent continues to make the same mistake their misinterpretation of morality. Necessity does not equate morality. If we would agree that stealing is wrong, it doesn't suddenly become right just because it is now a necessity to survival; it is still immoral, just justified. Conclusion- My opponent has failed to uphold their burden of proof.