Morality: Is it Objective or Relative

I as Con will be arguing why morality is relative. My opponent has sought to utilize David Hume's approach to ethics. Well, let us allow the views of German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche to assert morality must be relative for my first two points. The third point is my own observations on the resolution proposed. .1. The Origin of Morality(Master Morality v. Slave Morality)A Genealogy of Morality, Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that morality originated from the most powerful and noble(aristocratic). Nietzsche shows that the most powerful and noble defined what should of be considered "good. "Nietzsche points out what is "good" is the truth according to them. As a result, the noble and the powerful also determined the behavior of those in an inferior caste to be "bad[1]. " Nietzsche uses languages to explain this form of morality to show what "good" is associated with. Eventually this form of morality would be overcome by a different type of morality[1]. Nietzsche goes on to show that a separate form of morality came about from the religious. The most noble group who espoused this other form of morality was the Jews. This form of morality according to Nietzsche was started in resentment of the powerful and noble. This form of morality would most notably be espoused in Christianity. Nietzsche terms this form of morality "slave morality" due to its' origins[1]. Therefore, we see with the two origins of morality that morality is contested by two different forms of morality. This is why morals must not be absolute. -[1]Friedrich Nietzsche, A the Genealogy of Morality(New York: The MacMillan Company), 20-39. . http://books.google.com...2. There are different forms of morality(Master Morality v. Slave Morality)I will go further into the distinction between the different forms of morality that Nietzsche espouses. Friedrich Nietzsche points out that the characteristics and ideals of the two moralities are inherently different. The idea of good in the morality espoused by the powerful and the noble is that one can choose to be a predator or prey and do as one wishes. Versus the idea of "good" in slave morality is that a prey should bear a grudge against their predator[2]. One form of morality demands a certain a behavior while the other let's the user do as one wishes. This only reinforces the case that morality is relative. -[2]Friedrich Nietzsche, A the Genealogy of Morality(New York: The MacMillan Company), 46-49. . http://books.google.com...3.The human being is a definer who defines even when he does not know it. He will thus define subconsiously. The human being is a creature who has the full capacity to define it's own existence. The human being uses organized noise, then calls it a "language. " Languages which come and go at relative ease such as Anglo-Saxon/Old English, Gothic, and Latin. The human being defines the language he speaks. The human being exclusively defines the terms and associations of words spoken in a language as he wishes. The human being asserts value in his existence by giving himself a name and others a name. He goes on to name his place of living. We term these places as countries, nations, communities, neighborhoods, and even the house we live in(on occasion). Human beings go onto define their relationships as well to separate their interactions with other human beings. We term these concepts as families, friendships, marriages, couples, and the authority. The human being has the ability to threaten, coerce, and influence other human beings into behaving a sort of way. We term these as manners, morals, and laws. Manners which obligates us to abide by certain formalities. Morals which obligates us to a sense of "right" and "wrong. " Laws which punishes the human beings who behave in a manner considered unacceptable. The human being can even dictate what purpose is his existence. All of these things the human being dictates as he wishes just as the name he wishes to apply to himself. If human beings defined their own existence, why can they not define their own morals? Note: My deepest regrets to those who don't like reading the source I provided. There are summary of the book is online if one wishes. I have provided a link below. . http://www.sparknotes.com...