A case against moral universalism

One element of the conventional usage of moral language is that there are some moral prescriptions which give all rational agents some reason to act in conformity with them, regardless of the agents' preferences or goals. I call this view moral universalism. In this paper, I first defend a view of normativity on which universal moral judgments are true if and only if they correspond to standards which have the property of being reason-giving for all rational agents at all times. I then attempt to show that an assertoric claim that some standards have this property is unjustified. From this, I conclude that there is not logical support for the idea that any moral prescriptions are reason giving for all rational agents at all times, regardless of the agents' interests, as moral universalism requires.