Morality is not Relative
Debate Rounds (4)
In addition to this, ethical relativists tend to judge those based on the standard of their time. Doing this, however, results in judging by what was thought to be right rather than what actually is right. To clarify, a person thinking something is morally correct does not by any means justify the actions. It is always a question of what is right. They also tend to use the word "standard" incorrectly. As mentioned before, "standard" is used to describe what people thought to be right. However, "standard" should have a distinction from what is right, and what is thought to be right. They also hold the belief that "standards" are specific to one group and believe there is no common standard. But by comparing cultures, they imply an existence of one common standard.
If the theory of moral relativism were to be true, we could no longer make customs of our own society superior to others. Simply stating differences between cultures would be enough to allow the continuation of actions that would normally be frowned upon by other societies. Moral progress could not be argued. Moral progress is defined as replacement of old ways with new and improved ways. However, if there is to standard to judge them by, how is it progress? More importantly, because every culture has its own set of moral codes, we would not be able to justify what is right by looking at the moral codes of our own society. Also, relativist compare cultures with one another, however, by doing so, they
Furthermore, referring back to the Cultural Differences Argument, which states there are differences in morals codes between cultures, societies have been found to share at least one common ground with each other. There have been some moral rules that all societies follow because those rules are crucial for the existence of society. Therefore, if at least one moral rule is the same, there is a flaw within the theory. And adding to this, although they may not share the same beliefs with each other, the values do not differ from one another. Again, this would prove moral relativism to be false and prove the existence of one moral code.
In conclusion, many problems arise with the theory of moral relativism. Firstly, a part of the argument is not sound. In addition to this believing in moral relativism would call for the stop of actions that are continuously used today, such as making other societies inferior. The theory of Moral Relativism proves to be false.
2)Ethical absolutist believes in one moral code.
3) Thus morality is not relative for there is only one moral code.
4)If you don"t believe in one moral code then you are an relativist
5)If you"re an relativist you believe every society"s morals are equally the same
6)It is normal for it holds the same values as other society morals
8)Then some morals are relative
Ethical absolutism argues that there is in fact one universal code. This does not change from society to society. There have also been morals codes found to be the same in all societies. Moral relativism argues that every society is different. However, when examined, it is found that there are some morals/ values that are the same throughout different societies. Since this would make that not all societies are different, it would disprove the theory.
In conclusion, having all moral standards be the same would not make sense. And there is one universal moral code.
As previously mentioned, moral relativists argue that every society has its own set of rules making them all different. However, when you look at it closely, you realize that not every society is different. For example, a set of people don't eat cows because they believe it could be their deceased grandmas while other people eat cows. However, they do not eat their grandmas because they believe it is wrong to do. While the beliefs may be different, the values are the same. This would mean that not everything is different. This again proves that not everything is different.
There also must be a common moral standing. If there was not, society would cease to exist. For example, if killing wasn't morally incorrect, everyone would go around killing people for the sake of it. Mass killings would results in the diminish in society. Therefore, there must be a universal code.
jafet forfeited this round.
saplaisir forfeited this round.
jafet forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.