A classic debate in ethics! You’re arguing against moral relativism, which holds that morality is relative to individual or cultural perspectives, and instead advocating for an objective, absolute morality rooted in a divine creator. Here’s a breakdown of your argument:

Counterpoint to moral relativism:

1. Flawed premise: You contend that the idea of moral relativism, which suggests that morality varies from person to person or culture to culture, is fundamentally flawed.
2. Universal and absolute nature of moral principles: You argue that moral principles are not subjective or relative, but rather universal and absolute, applying to all humans across time and space.

Argument for a divine moral lawgiver:

1. Need for a moral framework: You suggest that the existence of a moral framework in human beings implies the need for a creator who intentionally designed this framework.
2. Divine intentionality: By positing a divine moral lawgiver, you imply that morality is not simply a human construct, but rather a deliberate design element of human nature.

Some potential responses and challenges:

1. Cultural and historical variations in morality: Moral relativists might argue that the significant variations in moral norms across cultures and throughout history undermine the idea of universal, absolute moral principles.
2. Evolutionary explanations for morality: Some might propose that moral sentiments and principles evolved as a means to ensure human survival and cooperation, rather than being divinely instilled.
3. The problem of evil: If a divine creator is responsible for the moral framework, why do we observe so much suffering, injustice, and evil in the world?
4. Alternative explanations for moral frameworks: Others might argue that moral principles can be derived from reason, human experience, or social contracts, without relying on a divine creator.

Counter-counterpoints:

1. Moral universals: You could counter that certain moral principles, such as the prohibition of murder or the importance of honesty, are universally recognized across cultures and time periods.
2. The argument from design: The complexity and order observed in human nature, including our moral capacities, might be seen as evidence for an intelligent designer or creator.
3. The need for a moral authority: You could argue that without a divine moral lawgiver, morality becomes arbitrary and lacks a higher authority to enforce and guide it.

This is just the beginning of a rich and complex debate. I’m excited to see where you’d like to take this discussion!