The Instigator
CivilianName295
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SkySky16
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Are some Cultures better than others?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,084 times Debate No: 101487
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

CivilianName295

Pro

I will be arguing that some cultures are better than others. (Con) will argue that all cultures are equal and that no culture is better than another.

Rules: Keep debate on topic, no name calling, use evidence to back up arguments

Round 1: Accepting rules and conditions
Round 2: Each side gives case to support there position
Round 3: Each side presents full rebuttles
Round 4: Final arguments and closing statements
Debate Round No. 1
CivilianName295

Pro

I will now present my case for why some cultures are better than others. In my case there are 3 main arguments I want to present to show why some cultures are objectively better than other cultures.

1) Not using toilets is bad
In many cultures today there are people that go to the bathroom in the middle of the street [1] since it's a part of there culture. This has caused much disease and has damaged development in those cultures[2] . In India for example 620 million Indians (half there population) still doesn't use any toilet and uses the bathroom out in the open [3] this causes it to smell horrible and makes disease flourish. Although there are efforts to help the Indians there is still much progress because there culture makes them go to the bathroom outside. Another example is that ever since the refugee crisis has started the refugees from the Middle East are pooping on the floor since it's a part of there culture. Many Europeans have had to tell them to stop [4]

2) Raping is bad
In some cultures it's ok to rape little body since it's a part of the culture [5]. US soilders were told to ignore sexual abuse of boys in Afghanistan [6]

3) Slavery is bad
In many cultures slavery is still legal since it's a part of there culture [7]. It was western culture that ended slavery and now the west is the most developed culture in the planet [8] [9]

So that is my case for why some cultures are better than others. I don't feel the need to go into detail why some cultures are better than others because at this point it should be a fact we all accept. I will now wait for (Con) to give his case then refute it in round 3.

[1] https://www.google.com...
[2] http://www.who.int...
[3] http://www.cnn.com...
[4] http://conservativetribune.com...
[5] http://www.thedailybeast.com...
[6] https://mobile.nytimes.com...
[7] https://www.google.com...
[8] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
[9] http://www.westminster-institute.org...
SkySky16

Con

No culture is better than the other. Allow me to present my case:
Note: I will not be answering pro's arguments because, as outlined in their round 1, I am to give a case to support my position, not a rebuttal.

1. Philosophy has no absolutes

This is from the book by Nietzche, Bietzche: "Human, All Too Human."

There are no absolutes in philosophical thinking. Within this spectrum falls morals. This is mostly because for every "ism" (i.e.: consequentialism, humanism, nihilism, etc.) has one or more "isms" that contradict it. Let's apply this to Pro's arguments.
a. Not using toilets is bad
This is predicated upon holding hygiene over personal freedoms. I'm not debating for excreting wherever you please, as I do not think that would be good; but I cannot say definitively that it is bad. Philosophical thought cannot really be proven or disproven if it is purely philosophical. One belief just holds personal freedoms over hygiene and cleanliness and there is nothing one can say that would completely show why it's "wrong" or "worse."

b. Raping is bad
A naturalist may argue that it is completely fine or even good. Again, I am not advocating for rape, I'm just saying that there is no argument that could disprove the notion that we should hold natural properties over others. This is because one could always claim that the preservation of those properties in human's outweighs any other downside.

c. Slavery is bad
Same as b. One could claim the social and legal hierarchy is essential to human nature and this should be allowed. Still, I'm not advocating for such.

2. No absolute truths mean nothing is objectively better than another thing.

Many responses to the examples I gave in my first contention would be that those cause more pain than they solve. That may very well be true but that is also assuming that human suffering is the first and foremost problem we should be concerned with philosophically. This is subjective thinking. To us in the west, these things are barbaric and cruel and I agree that they are such. But are their cultures OBJECTIVELY better than ours or another? No. You cannot prove this notion objectively. Human suffering is just one standard for philosophical evaluation.

3. Subjectively better is flawed and irrelevant.

Something being subjectively better than something else is the same as saying one thing is better because it does X better while the other thing is focused on doing Y. That is a very crude analogy, but I think it gets my point across. Furthermore, stating that your goal of reaching absolute X is better than reaching absolute Y is subjective in it of itself because standards exist. As I mentioned in 2, limiting human suffering is only one standard. No moral or philosophical standard can be proven objectively better than the other because they all seek to do different things and value different ideas more than others.

4. Conclusion

Con has proven nothing except that he believes that not using toilets is bad, rape is bad, and slavery is bad. I challenge Pro to objectively prove these things on all moral and philosophical standards. I understand that that challenge is impossible and that's the point.
Debate Round No. 2
CivilianName295

Pro

The only real argument that (Con) presented is that i cannot prove that OBJECTIVELY some cultures are better than others. Well it turns out that this argument is steamed from moral relativism the viewpoint that no objective moral values exist. Well i am not a relativist im a moral realist and believe that there are certain things objectivity wrong.

How to determine objective moral values

To discover what is objectively wrong it must be understood that if its universally subjective then it would be objective since all morals come from the human mind. In idealism for example mind is the fundamental substance in reality and so then morality if universally subjective would be objective since all minds would create the objective morality. And this concept doesn't only apply to idealism it also applies to dualism and physicalism since you cannot doubt that your mind exist. Doubting that your mind exist requires that the mind exist. This is true for all forms of philosophy.

Conclusion
(Con) has not shown that all cultures are equal. There are many people around the world that want to live in western culture and that alone should be proof that western culture is superior to all other cultures thus proving my point that some cultures are better than others.
http://www.gallup.com...
SkySky16

Con

Objectivity is the only way to go in academic argumentation and/or debate. This is widely known and accepted as truth. For many reasons. Subjective evidence is most commonly anecdotal evidence which doesn't stand to prove anything. The problem with subjective evidence is that literally any subjective argument has the exact argument. Since both are equally valid, how is one to come to a conclusion. Ah that's right. Objectivity. For example. What if one enjoyed crapping in the streets, raping people, and enslaving the rest? What is OBJECTIVELY better or worse. Nothing. Moral Nihilism shows us that there is no inherent objectivity in morality. This is because morality was created by people to serve society and it changes as the society's needs change. You are prosperous and flourishing as a society? Great! You will most likely have "better" moral standards. You are impoverished and riddled with famine? Boo, you have "lower" moral standards. "What is wrong for the rich man, is right for the beggar."
Because Pro cannot objectively prove a culture is better than another morally, he took the moral POV, he simply cannot win this debate. It is simply impossible to be objectively moral. You can be logical and apply reason, but objectivity is impossible for humans. That is why every source has bias and every person has differing opinions.

Determining what is objective by using the "universally subjective" standard is flawed. Just because everyone thinks the same way, doesn't mean it is true. That is the appeal to popularity fallacy. For the largest part in history, slavery was morally passable to the vast majority of societies. This not only explains the fallacy but also proves my point. Economically, it was infeasible for some place like the newly founded America to compete on a global scale and to have a flourishing economy. But because slaves were a cheap and effective source of production they were able to. This allowed for the industrialization of the country which, ironically, allowed for the abolition of slavery since it wasn't needed as an economic resource any longer. This is apparent in most historical stories of when a society gets rid of slavery and in many other aspects. I could list stories all day, but I think I've made my point.

I have not shown that all cultures are equal because I don't have to. I know, this sounds weird because if I'm stated that some cultures are not better than others I must be stating they are equal, right? Kind of. I could go down that path but it is much more complicated in the argumentation and requires are further understanding of moral nihilism like I have. Since I assume that my contender doesn't know anything (not an insult, just a guideline to structure my arguments) I went with the just as effective yet easier to understand argument. It is impossible to prove this objectively.

Conclusion:

I have shown that objective thinking is most certainly the only guideline for any respectable debate and that Pro cannot objectively prove the topic. Thus, the voters should vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
CivilianName295

Pro

(Con) seems to have a misunderstanding of my defense of objective moral values existing (Con) said "Determining what is objective by using the "universally subjective" standard is flawed. Just because everyone thinks the same way, doesn't mean it is true. That is the appeal to popularity fallacy. For the largest part in history, slavery was morally passable to the vast majority of societies. This not only explains the fallacy but also proves my point. Economically, it was infeasible for some place like the newly founded America to compete on a global scale and to have a flourishing economy. But because slaves were a cheap and effective source of production they were able to. This allowed for the industrialization of the country which, ironically, allowed for the abolition of slavery since it wasn't needed as an economic resource any longer. This is apparent in most historical stories of when a society gets rid of slavery and in many other aspects. I could list stories all day, but I think I've made my point."

My response: And i agree but i should have clarified what i meant by "Universally subjective" i was not speaking about what most people think are morally right or wrong but rather that as society progresses we can discover these moral values and why certain things like rape and murder are wrong because they damage the society as a whole and so then we create or modify our legal systems. This is not to say that we necessarily make up morality rather we discover morality and use it as an advantage.

I would agree with (Con) that third world countries would have a lower moral standard than first world countries but thats because they are not as progressed as we are in technology and science. Any rational person would agree that a society with better technology would necessary be better than the society with weak technology furthermore the society with higher moral standards are better than the lower moral standards which concludes that some cultures are better than others since they are far more advanced.

There are many thing in life that are objective like mathematics, physics and science. There are things true objectively without subjective opinions. Mathematics, physics and science is always being updated discovering new things and getting closer to discovering objective truths. You cannot deny objective truths since the claim "Truth doesn't exist" is a truth claim. So then the same applies to morality we update and discover what is more right or wrong and logically cultures that have more moral obligations are morally better than cultures with less moral obligations thus its objectively true that some cultures are better than others.

i thank (Con) for accepting this debate

Conclusion:
Since morality is being discovered like math and science are being discovered then its objectively true that some cultures are better than others. And so please vote Pro.
SkySky16

Con

"as society progresses we can discover these moral values and why certain things like rape and murder are wrong because they damage the society as a whole and so then we create or modify our legal systems. This is not to say that we necessarily make up morality rather we discover morality and use it as an advantage." That is exactly what I stated moral nihilism was and how that shows objective morality doesn't exist. Society is always changing. Morals will always change. Objective morals are impossible. We do make up reality. It wasn't discovered, it was created. We may "discover" different moral standards to have society go by but that is still creation by humankind.

I don't believe I said third world countries had "lower" moral standards. I was making the point that their moral standards are set up that way because of their situation. Cruddy infrastructure means people will think crapping in the streets is just fine and etc. "Any rational person..." I'll answer this ridiculous statement with another. Any rational person would prefer objective reasoning rather than subjective. This is my point in this debate. Pro cannot prove that some cultures are better than others and I cannot prove they are equal. This is because morality is completely subjective and only serves the purpose to justify what people need, or feel the need, to do. If the debate was "Are some cultures better at producing peanuts than others?" Then we could have a real debate because that can be objectively proven.

Yes I agree mathematics, physics, and science are nearly completely objective. I haven't denied objective truths I have denied objective moral truths not existing. That is factual. To counter this by saying "'Objective moral truth doesn't exist' is a truth statement so con contradicts themselves" is illogical. I'm talking about moral standards, the statement "Objective moral truth doesn't exist" is not a standard. This means it cannot contradict itself.

Pro making the argument that society "update and discover"s their morality just goes to show that my argument stands true. In Pro's conclusion he sums up his argument. Morality isn't being discovered like math and science. This is because science is completely observatory and takes conclusions from the observations while math is just numbers logic. Morality and philosophical thinking are not either, so to compare the two is a false dichotomy. We create morality, we haven't and won't discover it.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
undoubtably.
is anyone smarter than another?
more ethical?
harder working?
more considerate?
more efficient?
wiser?
successful?
Posted by SkySky16 1 year ago
SkySky16
everytime I try to submit my acceptance it goes to an error page, will try in a little while
No votes have been placed for this debate.