Knight provided a definition of absolute morality. That definition provided that there must be a standard of absolute right and wrong that supercedes human standards.
What Knight showed: humans almost universally believe that murder and rape are wrong (although Zak provided some clear biblical evidence of "justified" murder and rape, which Knight and his supporters have curiously avoided addressing). Note the key words herein -- humans believe. Knight appealed to human standards only throughout his entire side of the debate, yet his entire argument hinges on there being a standard that supercedes the human. When asked to demonstrate it, he responded that he didn't have to show it because the point of the debate wasn't to show the source of the standard. Well, the problem is, he wasn't asked to show the source of the standard, he was asked to show the standard itself and to demonstrate its existence. What was the point of the debate? I thought it was to demonstrate absolute morals, but Knight succeeded only in showing morals that he has only measured by human standards.
Could someone please show me where Knight demonstrated moral absolutes? Can someone please show me where he demonstrated that the standard that is required by his definition exists? Can someone please show me where Knight did anything but tuck his tail between his legs and run in terror from that question?
As the "affirmative" combatant, Knight was required to do the following things:
1) Provide a definition of absolute morality, as he understands it. He did this.
2) Provide (not merely assert, or measure only by appealing to human standards) that the supercedent standard that he provided in his definition exists. In other words, he needed to be able to go beyond human experience, beyond human emotion, and beyond human belief to demonstrate this point that is so integral to his argument. He did not do this.
By default, Knight loses the debate. There are no two ways about it. I don't give a red darn how much you all agree with his position, he simply did not support the case he was trying to make. He simply did not provide for the existence of the standard he alleged exists. He appealed to human emotion and human logic. Never once did he appeal to the one thing that he was required by his definition to appeal to -- anything superceding humanity. If the only way you can measure the thing is by appealing to factors within the realm of human experience, then "the thing" is by nature relative to the human experience.
You see, a relativist does not need to demonstrate that morals or ethics are not absolute (they may or may not be, but the point is, it's impossible to prove). He only needs to demonstrate that they are relative. They can be relative and absolute at the same time, because the two terms are not automatically exclusive. An absolute merely provides that they are relative in the same way to everyone. So, a relativist can easily prove that morals and ethics are relative, without having to debunk absolutism. But, the same cannot be said of absolutism, which is impossible to prove, as Knight has so clumsily demonstrated.