Moral Relativism is True

1.Unpopular argument etc My opponent is already appealing to „alarming conclusions". He does that despite the fact that I had explained in very clear terms that this reasoning is a fallacy. Additionally, by doing so, he is stepping outside of the SCOPE of the debate. The proposition I am told to prove is a FACTUAL proposition. The question is "is moral relativism true?". In other words, "is morality based on principles and standards that are subjective and varied as opposed to a single, absolute set of standards?" That's the question. The question is NOT "would we prefer a world in which a single absolute set of moral standards existed?" My opponent then says that Appeal to Consequence is valid in Ethics and quotes wiki for that proposition. Well, let us see what wiki REALLY says about the matter. I quote from my opponent's (and mine) source: "appeal to consequences does not refer to arguments that address a premise's DESIRABILITY (good or bad, or right or wrong) instead of its truth value. Therefore, an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in ethics, and in fact such arguments are the cornerstones of many moral theories, particularly related to consequentialism." (capitalised emphasis is mine) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... Yes, of course, if there is an argument about whether a premise is DESIRABLE then naturally you can (you even HAVE TO) appeal to consequence. Do we want people to smoke pot? Yes, we do, otherwise we destroy personal freedom and that's bad. Or, no we don't because that puts them at risk of schizophrenia. These are arguments about ethical values and NOT about a TRUTH VALUE. But our current argument is not about ethical values. Our debate is about truth value. The question is whether a particular state of affairs (that of the non-existence of absolute morality) is TRUE. The answer to this is either a yes or a no. And even if some of us prefer that there would be a moral absolute (or that there wouldn't be), that doesn't affect the answer. My opponent then says that morality is based on intuition. Fine. A lot of it may be intuitive. But that's the problem. Different people have different intuition. Countless examples of that. There are people to whom abortion feels wrong and those to whom it doesn't. There are people to whom theft feels wrong. And then there are people who think that it's justified in their circumstances and for reasons of their own. And there are people who don't believe in the existence of proprietary rights at all. My opponent then takes the matter to the extreme, giving an example of torturing babies for fun. Sure, by far most of us feel that it's very wrong to torture babies for fun. And yet, at the same time, there are examples of people who do torture babies for fun and don't appear to be too worried about it (except for getting caught). Protecting your young is a natural instinct amongst most humans (and many other species). But it's not universal, even within a species. There are always exceptions. 2.Individual and cultural basis My opponent says that it's always considered immoral to kill a human without justification. Well, with respect, it's immoral to do ANYTHING without justification. That's the very basis of morality, whether it's absolute or not. An unjustified act is an immoral act, by definition. Where the differences arise is on the issue of WHAT JUSTIFIES an act. In Deuteronomy ancient Jews justify killing their own spouses and children for merely believing in a different God. In the USA many justify the killing of a person for committing a murder. Scores of innocents perished in Hiroshima so that the US government could intimidate the Japanese government into submission. Some will say these are justified killings, some will not. Why is that? Because morality is relative. We can't even say that killing is universally considered to be the worst act. Deuteronomy laws are an example of killing FOR BELIEF. Thus, belief was considered a worse thing than killing. Similar goes for many British laws in the 17-18th centuries. It wasn't until 1808 that Britain abandoned death penalty for PICKPOCKETS and lesser offenders (yes, you read correctly, PICKPOCKETS): http://en.wikipedia.org.... What about stoning people for adultery? If killing is the worst thing one can do, why are some courts killing people for a simple act of sexual intercourse? Obviously, they consider chastity to be of higher value than life. It's all relative, you see. Moral relativism. My opponent says that the inconsistencies between cultures are factual and not value-based. Well, that's not true. The inconsistencies I'm referring to are very much value-based. As illustrated above. 3.The A Priori argument My opponent draws an analogy with mathematics. Well, with all due respect, that is an entirely new kettle of fish. Where mathematics comes from, what are its sources and whether it is absolute is subject to much debate. Philosophical viewpoints vary from Logicism (ie, mathematics is derived directly from logic) to New Empiricism (ie, all knowledge is based on observation). And then there is Fictionalism, Aristotelian Realism, Social Constructivism, Quasi-Empiricism (although this one doesn't completely challenge the others), Intuitionism, Formalism and last but not least Platonism. That's SEVEN largely inconsistent philosophical schools of thought about what mathematics really is and what it's based on. Source (*gulps*): http://en.wikipedia.org... To more directly address my opponent's analogy, he is, in a way, right! Mathematics is indeed based on axioms (unproven assumptions). By convention, mathematicians agree that these assumptions are true. They agree that if A is A then A can't be NOT-A (in logic we call this the Law of the Excluded Middle). It's an axiom, an assumption, an agreed convention which does appear (from our OBSERVATIONS) to be self-evident. It just always seems to come true (until you start observing the behaviour of some subatomic particles, that is, and things get very weird from then onwards). But my opponent's analogy is out of place altogether. You see, there is a huge difference. When asking "is Equation A true?", you are really asking "given the convention of the accepted mathematical model, do we agree with the FACTUAL claim that Equation A is true?" And yes, this DOES start from accepting the mathematical model. Of course it does. In ethics, the question is different. The question is "is Normative Standard A more correct than Normative Standard B?" and, unlike in mathematics, there is no agreed model. Standards differ. Models differ. You cannot verify any moral model by observation. You cannot observe that an adulterer's life is more important than fidelity. The only thing you can do is say "I'm right because my standard is more correct than yours because I said so", then block your ears and sing "la la la la, I can't hear you". To sum it up, yes, mathematics is based on an axiom, a convention. Now, if one could point to a corresponding convention in the field of morality, we could say that the same applies. But there isn't one. Why? Because morality is relative. Nb. Just to be clear, my opponent accused me of a fallacy (re the A Priori matter). Well, I was told to start the debate. My A Priori argument only stands insofar as the opposition chooses to show absolute morality based on the truth of one moral standard as opposed to another. Of course, if my opponent wants to present a DIFFERENT argument in favour of absolute morality then my A Priori argument doesn't apply. So far he presents nothing at all. Does he intend to simply rely on the Burden of Proof?