Objective Morality

I am indeed insisting that "the logic used to express scientific laws and ideas can be applied to an abstract concept such as morality." The reason this works is that scientific laws are also abstract. Laws of any sort are, by definition, universal and invariant. Only abstract entities have such qualities. So, when my opponent says "the manner in which scientists are in disagreement about science, is in no way similar to the way me and my opponent are in disagreement about morality," he is simply making a bare assertion. Just as "scientists can all agree that at the end of the day," so can ethicists. So, how does this support his position at all? I am well aware that he is arguing "that there is no true right answer in the question of morality," but my point is that he can't substantiate it.My goal is to expose my opponent's presuppositions. My opponent is assuming the nature of morality from the start. He can't in any way substantiate his claims other than to restate them with ever increasing emphasis. I don't fault him for his pre-commitments because there is no other choice. Morality is ultimately a worldview presupposition. I presuppose morality is objective; he presupposes morality is sociological.The question becomes, how do we determine which presupposition is more rational? We do so using transcendental argumentation, i.e., by determining which presupposition provides the necessary preconditions for our human experience. I submit that relative morality falls woefully short on this count. Relative morality makes moral obligation philosophically unintelligible and practically irrational. To say someone "ought not" do something is more than an expression of mere opinion. It is the assertion that another human being is in violation of some external rule. Relative morality cannot account for moral obligation.My opponent exemplifies this when he says, "Since I believe morality is subjective, I would need to be convinced of how rape could be morally good." This is all well and good within the purview of moral assessment, but he will contradict his ethical framework as soon as he obligates another human being to live contrary to consensus. In fact, my opponent admits that were he living in a society that condones rape, he would be troubled. Why? Because he will never deem rape as wrong. He unwittingly adheres to an objective moral standard.You see, I don't have to worry about these philosophical dilemmas. If rape being wrong is a matter of universal truth, then I have every rational reason to oppose it no matter what society says otherwise. My ethical worldview is rational and livable. My opponent's worldview requires making the illogical leap from what is to what ought.One must also question my opponent's understanding of what it means to be objective. In my previous round I asked, "Again, there are objective scientific laws that operate differently depending on external conditions, so why not moral laws?" My opponent's answer was that "this idea would make those scientific laws NOT objective." My opponent is gravely mistaken. The law of gravity most certainly has variables (mass of the object, etc.), yet it is no less objective. Gravity is hardly an issue of opinion. And if gravity can be objectively described with constants and variables, then so can moral laws. Thus, my opponent cannot continue to rest is laurels on the idea that context automatically proves subjectivity.I asked, "If morality is nothing more than consensual opinion, then on what basis does one make moral obligations?" My opponent's answer, "on the basis of consensual opinion," just begs the question. He just told us that he would need to be convinced of the morality of something regardless of consensus, yet he tells us here that his basis for moral obligation is based on consensus. Which is it? My opponent cannot have it both ways. Going back to the rape-is-consensually-good scenario, am I to understand that he would morally assess that rape is wrong but not obligate people to refrain from the activity? Such behavior is certifiably insane. This is precisely what I mean when I say that relative morality cannot be rationally lived out.Relative morality leads to far too many absurdities to be philosophical tenable. Even my opponent can't seem to maintain a solid footing. Objective morality is proven by the utter irrationality of its opposite. I maintain, therefore, that the resolution is affirmed.