Morality is fair

"The world we live in is not so black and white that we can claim things to be absolute.This is similar to the debate "is love real", the trouble is love is not something physical but it is as real as anything in the world to those who have it."Love may be advocated by some forms of morality but not all. Some forms of morality denounce any form of intimacy therefore love will not exist in said system. Nor is love and morality are the same or comparable for that matter. That is a "Weak Analogy" fallacy[1].[1]http://www.logicallyfallacious.com..."Con seems to believe that because morality is not absolute it cannot possibly be fair and that being a matter of perspective somehow diminishes the intent of morality which is to be fair."I said in the previous rounds that fairness can not exist according to Pro's reasoning due to the simple fact there is no absolute judge for fairness. At least according to his line of reasoning in this debate thus far. Therefore fairness must be relative according to his perception. Then it is a matter of competing perspectives of what fair is. "I suppose a more appropriate way to define morality would be "the intent to be fair to others" because like love, sadness, happiness they are all just situation conditional, not one is absolute."Even according to the association to morality Pro has provided in the above sentence is relative. The "intent to be fair to others" is extremely relative. For example, if I lived in some countries and was one of the wealthiest persons, I could have majority of my income stolen every year. It is considered moral and just to take at least 75% of my income away a year that I earned from voluntary engagements with others. The country I am referring to immediatly is France and they steal income by taxing other it from people[2]. It is done out of "fairness" to others. I ask is this fair? If so, how so because the money that these people have is earned. While the government steals that which it can not receive naturally for itself. Yes it is a form of stealing because the government is using coercion and other threats to take that which does not belong to it.[2]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Steal:"to take (something that you are not supposed to have) without asking for permission"[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com..."True though it may be that morality is not always fair it is certainly intended to be by those that choose to have morals."Once again, my opponent has made it clear that only his morals are acceptable(at least in his opinion). I would make the claim that everyone has a form of morals. Just not the type of morals Pro subscribes to. For example, some societies tolerate adultrey, sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, and other libertine acts. While these committing these acts in other societies could get one sentenced to death because it is considered immoral[3]. Everyone has a form of morals but the morals tend to be relative to states, nations, tribes, families, and individuals.[3]http://www.ekantipur.com..."Those that engaged in slavery were not being moral by definition despite any justifications they made in their minds......... : the degree to which something is right and good : the moral goodness or badness of something"Yes, the slave owners were being moral because from their perception they were teaching people to be upright and train them in Christianity. In their minds they were right. Again, Pro has tried to force his morals onto others by dictating what is moral and what is not. But he does not have the authority to make that claim because he does not believe in a supreme authority to judge morality. Therefore morals are relative to the individual as I stated earlier and other times throughout the debate.