The Instigator
sylvie.utteriyn
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
nicoleessig
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Morality is not Relative

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 1 vote the winner is...
nicoleessig
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/19/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,015 times Debate No: 34891
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

sylvie.utteriyn

Pro

Following up on the topic of "morality" and based on the readings that we covered in class, I will use author W.T. Stace"s essay to establish my argument that "morality is not relative". First, I will define "morality-; in class we identified morality as a set of rules that prohibits or dictates what individuals can or cannot do in term of harm.
If morality is not relative, then it means that it is not changing. Therefore, it is absolute. By absolute I mean to say that it does not matter what the conditions are because there is an universal moral standard that applies to all.
1.Only one true and valid moral code exist (94.2)
2.That means only one morality exist for all men (94.2.11)
3.Those who believe that morality is relative cannot use the word "standard-(96.4-5)
4.Because "standard- used by an absolutist means only "one" and if used by a relativist it means more than just "one-(96.4-6)
5.If we argue that there is more than just one moral standard then how can we determine which "one "is the best.(93.1)
6. We cannot because we live on a planet that has an undefined number of existing societies.
7.Therefore, morality is not relative because if it were we would not be able to define its limits. (93.1)

By using W.T. Stace"s essay I have concluded my argument that morality is not relative because morality is not something that changes from one day to another instead it remains unchanged for all because all existing civilizations have one universal moral code they share in common.
nicoleessig

Con

Morality is a set of rules on prohibitions dictation what is or is not permissible in terms of harm. Each culture has their own moral code and own morals that they follow. Moral tolerance, which is acceptance of another persons actions and beliefs, is something that should be accepted worldwide when talking about this situation of moral relativism. Many people believe that morality is relative to society.

1.Morality is just a matter of opinion to each culture in different societies.
2.What one person may believe is "right," a person in another culture may believe it to be "wrong."
3.Having one moral code for every person and culture around the world to follow is something that is not relative.
4.There are various codes and rules in each culture, but one is not "more special" than the other one.
5. Therefore, morality is relative to society.
Debate Round No. 1
sylvie.utteriyn

Pro

I do not agree, morality is not relative because morality is just a term that is used for approved social conducts that a given society will approve or disapprove therefore, therefore all society will have some sort of moral codes they will establish for their time that one should live by. You argue that what is right for one person may not be right for another how can you assert this position if morality is relative. That would mean that we have more than just one set of moral codes so therefore which to choose from? what do you mean by: " Therefore, morality is relative to society" that does not make any sense. Then, you say that morality is a matter of opinion but who's opinion you are referring to?
nicoleessig

Con

All societies do have some sort of moral codes but they are not the same for each society. For example in parts of the world it is seen as "right" to kidnap a bride who you want to marry. Here in the United States we do not see that as "right" but instead as illegal, because you are taking someone else against their own will. This shows that there is not one moral code that we all go by, because if we did all go by the same moral code everyone would believe that this is something that is "right" and everyone would be doing it.
You say that that morality is not relative because we would not be able to define its limits, but each society already has their own limits of morality set in place, but these limits vary from one culture to another. You referenced W.T. Stace's essay and concluded that morality is not something that changes from one day to another but instead remains unchanged for all because they share one universal moral code. Each society sets moral codes and moral standards that are right for their society and right for their culture. Each society has their own opinion that they are entitled to, and their moral codes come from that opinion. If morality is "just a term" then why is it so important all around the world?
Debate Round No. 2
sylvie.utteriyn

Pro

Referring back to my argument
Only one true and valid moral code exist (94.2)
2.That means only one morality exist for all men (94.2.11)
3.Those who believe that morality is relative cannot use the word "standard-(96.4-5)
4.Because "standard- used by an absolutist means only "one" and if used by a relativist it means more than just "one-(96.4-6)
5.If we argue that there is more than just one moral standard then how can we determine which "one "is the best.(93.1)
6. We cannot because we live on a planet that has an undefined number of existing societies.
7.Therefore, morality is not relative because if it were we would not be able to define its limits. (93.1)
what I have paste above is again to reiterate my point that we all have one moral standard if we did not than how else can we exist in the world. all the word morality do is defining behaviors that a society will approve or not approve but the definition of the word itself does not change what changes is what a society feel at the time therefore what is morality based on feelings or behaviors? I ask. Why should we put outhere that morality is relative when it is not! you have not proven your point to me. You expressed this to me: " For example in parts of the world it is seen as "right" to kidnap a bride who you want to marry. Here in the United States we do not see that as "right" but instead as illegal, because you are taking someone else against their own will. This shows that there is not one moral code that we all go by, because if we did all go by the same moral code everyone would believe that this is something that is "right" and everyone would be doing it. But just because one society will kidnap their brides in some part of the world does not mean that morality is relative it only means that at this time and age those individual are following a culture that they think is right for them but nowhere does that prove that morality is relative if so how's so,
nicoleessig

Con

you say that all morality does is define behaviors that a society feels at the time, how do you define what a society feels at the time? One day it can be one thing and the next it can change and be something completely different. If you were to have one moral code it would be the same every single day all around the world in every single place. You state that my example is showing that there is not one moral code that we go by, because there isn't. There is more then one moral code that everyone around the world goes by, and it is defined by their society. In your argument you state that there is only one true and valid moral code that exists, where did this one true and valid moral code come from? how does everyone around the world know about just this one true and valid moral code? Who made this one moral code the ultimate one that everyone is to follow? In your argument you state that if we argue that there is more than just one moral standard then how can we determine which one is "best", we don't need to determine that, we can accept all of the different moral codes that exist around the world.
Debate Round No. 3
sylvie.utteriyn

Pro

you still did not answer my question what does morality has to do with difference in opinions. what is it that you're saying that morality is based on opinions/feelings or what? all men live under one moral code that means whatever one is not approving then the other will thererefore, some way some how there will be a common ground for all and this is what I argue that morality is not relative if we have a common ground if you say that one is right and somebody else say that this is wrong then what does that say about this "thing"? It just say that it is neither right or wrong and that obviously we will reach a point where we will agree on just one thing. therefore again morality is not relative you cannot changes moral codes from one day to another how can we exist if every single day we have to go by a different set of moral codes that everyone has to follow? So imagine everyday you wake up and oops there go another moral codes added to the millions of moral codes that you will have to follow how is that possible and how can you live that way if morality is relative than that means that whenever someone wants to change their mind about something they can just change moral codes already establish and there it is. that is absurb! then you say that we do not need to determine if we do have just one moral standard but rather we should accept all moral codes that currently exist how can we do there are an infinte number of societies existing and can we investigate this matter.
nicoleessig

Con

To your argument, "all men live under one moral code that means whatever one is not approving then the other will thererefore, some way some how there will be a common ground for all and this is what I argue that morality is not relative if we have a common ground if you say that one is right and somebody else say that this is wrong then what does that say about this "thing"? There is not going to be a common ground for every single argument, if two people do not agree on something and have complete opposite opinions then they will never reach a common ground. in the readings we have done in class we see that each philosophers see things differently and they show that there are examples that there is not one moral code but rather multiple moral codes. One is not right and one is not wrong, but there is more than one. We just need accept the fact that there are different moral codes and keep an open mind to these different moral codes and standards that exist today.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
sylvie.utteriynnicoleessigTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt Pro's arguments relied too much on aggregates, and that Pro did not fulfill the BOP. As Con pointed out; just because you can find common ground, does not mean you agree.