Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

I. Moral Argument Positions:a. Relativism:  Holds that societies and/or individuals decide what is right and  wrong and that those values vary from culture to culture or person  to person.In this world view, there are no objective, universal moral truths,--just conventions for behavior that are created by people for people and that are subject to change. a1. Cultural Relativism:Is based on the observation that different cultures seem to have different values. And since they have all different value systems, there must be no right system, no objective morality.b. Objective Morality:It holds that morals are prescriptions for behavior and motive that have the force of a command. They contain a sense of obligation and oughtness that is universal, authoritative, and outweighs considerations of culture, time, and place.Thus, this world view holds that morals are not opinions. They are not personal, private decisions, and they are not descriptions of behavior.II. Science, Reason, Intuition. Now that both positions are defined, I would submit that in order to understand what our moral obligations are, we do not go about it scientifically. As you know, science investigates the physical world, collect facts, and draws conclusions from those facts. Therefore, it can not tell us what "ought" to happen, only what will probably happen under certain circumstances. Basically, it is descriptive. Secondly, if morality can't be based on descriptions of the world, neither can it be derived from reason. Reason helps us recognize contradictions, but not the morality of the propositions. Example: If someone told you, "I always lie," you would use reason to understand that this is a paradoxical statement. If it's true, than it's false, and if its false, then its true. But reason does not tell us anything about whether lying is right or wrong or whether truthful confession is virtue or not.One way we come to moral knowledge is directly. That is, we know it through intuition. Why? Because some things are only known in themselves. There is no need for investigation of facts or reasoning is required.Example: "Torturing babies for fun is wrong" Reason does not help us respond to this claim. And nobody has to investigate what torture is, what babies are, and what fun is before they can take a moral stance on it.Hence, it is self-evident; knowledge and our intuition equip us to recognize it as such. Moral intuition is a genuine form of knowledge.III. Your Points:1. "First off, if this were the case so many different cultures would not disagree on some many levels"IV. Rebuttal:1. The majority of moral conflicts actually has nothing to do with morality. There is great agreement on moral issues when the moral systems of other cultures and religions are surveyed. What is it than? Basically, they at their core, factual disputes. Example: Let us take on abortion. The pro-life position argues that it is wrong to take a life of an innocent human being. The pro-choice position actually agrees with the pro-life position on this essential point. What is the differance than? Pro-choice that does not agree that the fetus or the embryo is a human being. The debate is factual. If the question is answered, than morality's prescriptions can enter into the discussion, and abortion either is recognized as morally neutral, completely acceptable procedure, or as murder.IV. ConclusionThere are great moral agreements among cultures and that majority of the conflicts are mainly factual debates.