All Morals are Relative

First, I would like to address my opponent's general statements, and then I will proceed to the arguments of the debate. My opponent's first two general points are correct, if obvious. My opponent's last statement is flawed though. For my opponent to win this debate, he must either prove that I have not shown morals to be relative or show that one or many morals are absolute. In order to prove that that/those moral(s) is/are in fact absolute, then he must show that they do not conform to the same standards that I have set up in my arguments. As a result, my opponent must either attack my arguments, or concede to them and then show that his moral(s) of choice do not conform to my arguments. By this, my opponent must prove that his moral is not just viewed independently from subjective view points, but that either the moral is universal in that it has remained unchanged throughout history and that it has been constantly used as a moral base, or that there is a completely object arbiter or unbiased moral law that proves his moral to be absolute. With this correction, I will now proceed to arguments/rebuttals. =====Arguments/Rebuttals===== -----Rights vs. Morals----- My opponent has brought two objections forward to my argument between rights and morals. His first is that the UDHR cannot protect the declared right, and therefore it does not have the authority to declare it as a right. I would like to point out the two obvious flaws. One, the US Constitution has given its citizens many rights; however the United States lacks the resources necessary to guarantee that those rights are protected. Unless my opponent wishes to claim that that the United States cannot claim things to be rights for its citizens, he cannot claim that the UN cannot claim rights to exist for all of humanity. Second, the UN is made up by a large group of countries housing a vast majority of the world's population. All of these nations have agreed to the document and its contents, so my opponents contest to its jurisdiction is invalid. Next my opponent states that something does not cease to be a moral once a governing body has decided to protect it. Indeed, a government protecting a moral does not negate it as a moral, however once something has been declared as a right, then it ceases to be a moral. As my opponent has brought forward no contest to the definitions of morals or the definition of rights, then I assume he concedes to them. Based upon this, there are obvious differences between the definition of a right and the definition of a moral; therefore his "moral" is actually a right. -----Limitations----- My opponent has stated that his moral standard does apply to all situations. To this end, he contested my drug use example claiming that because it does not violate his standard that it is not immoral, however people all over the world do view drug use as immoral; therefore his argument breaks down. Regardless, my opponent has requested that I provide a situation where his moral does not apply. To that end, I present abortion as the paradox of his "moral standard." On one end, the woman has the right to govern her own body, thus making the choice of killing the child a moral one. However, on the opposing side, the child has the right to govern its body, and thus a paradox is created, which disqualifies my opponent's "moral" as absolute. -----Derivation----- "My utilitarian arguments, found at the beginning and the end of my derivation, are non-essential to the sustenance of the derivation, because it is only one of the logical paths to the standard of self-governance; however, I will still defend it, briefly(because my opponent has only contradicted me, without any ethical argument)." First, my opponent has claimed to have other logical derivations to support his argument, however as he has not presented them, that argument is inadmissible. Second, my opponent has a misunderstanding of the entire point of this debate if believes that I have not brought forward an "ethical argument." This entire debate is about Moral Relativism, and my arguments are based around Normative Relativity and Meta-Ethical Relativity. Next, my opponent backs up his argument of happiness stating that it is justification for his "moral." This is fundamentally flawed because a person who takes pleasure in happiness can use this derivation to justify homicide, which violates the very "moral" that my opponent is trying to prove. Therefore, his derivation is flawed. -----Random Claims----- "He objects that sex is, for some reason, immoral. I would like my opponent to back that claim up. My opponent claims that stealing money is, for some reason, moral. I would like my opponent to back that claim up. Regardless of my opponent's two baseless moral assertions, the objective and absolute standard still stands, because it is derived objectively, is intrinsic, and can still be used to determine right and wrong." First, in relation to my supposed claim that sex is immoral, this is just flawed. Re-read my actual argument, and please avoid misquoting your opponent. Second, as I have proved my opponents derivation to be flawed, his "moral" does not stand. -----Moral Evolution----- My opponent again claims that his "moral" has not evolved. I have already shown this not to be true. -----Definition Argument----- My opponent claims that I have used a "cherry-picked" definition. If my opponent contests my definition, than it is his burden to provide an alternative one and then prove why it is superior. -----Human Knowledge----- This is by far the largest flaw in my opponent's entire argument. According to the definition of morals, a moral is how we determine what is right and what is wrong. As a result, human knowledge does limit its existence. Is a human does not know something to exist, it is impossible for him/her to act upon it. As an example, if I were to be unaware that killing was immoral, and then I killed an individual, I am still morals justified because I did not have a moral telling me to do otherwise. All in all, unless my opponent can bring up a "better" definition, his entire argument about human knowledge is completely irrelevant. -----Extraneous Points----- "Just as differences in scientific belief do not mean that there is scientific relativity, differences in moral belief do not mean that there is moral relativity." This is a non-sequitur. Scientific theory is in the purist of an absolute answer, morals are a system by which people determine what is right and what is wrong. Your "burden of proof" is to show that morals are absolute, therefore this point proves nothing. "My opponent has not refuted my "witty" statement, he has merely stated that it proves nothing. It proves plenty." That is in fact a refutation. My opponent's evidence, if it were to be presented, possibly would; however the statement itself means nothing. "An argument is not logically flawed simply if my opponent disagrees with it; it is logically flawed if there is a logical problem with it." This is correct, however as shown, my opponent has a great number of logical flaws in his argument, and therefore his argument does not stand. "My opponent has conceded that his argument regarding the lack of universal standards falls with the existence of the standard of human self-governance." I have conceded no such point. Baseless claims do not support an argument. =====Conclusion===== My opponent has presented several logically flawed arguments, and then has used more logical fallacies to support them. These inherent logical errors disqualify my opponent's arguments as valid, thus dismantling his position. I therefore stand by my position that all morals are in fact relative.