The Instigator
shahroz231
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
Alex1991
Con (against)
Tied
7 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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/19/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 328 times Debate No: 34897
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

shahroz231

Pro

I think morality is not relative. Before I state my reasons I must make clear what morality exactly is and what it means when one considers morality is not relative. Based on my knowledge morality is set of rules that are or are not permissible in terms of harm. The reasons I think morality is not relative because right and wrong are matter of opinion, different societies have different beliefs, and opinions varies from culture to culture.
An individual who is born and rise in a family where drinking alcohol is wrong and is a sin. For that individual drinking alcohol is wrong and if he does it then he is committing a sin. On the other hand an individual who"s born and live in a family where drinking alcohol is not a sin and it"s not wrong either. This does not make alcohol right or wrong to drink but it shows the differences in opinions base on different families.
Different societies have different beliefs. For example, in a Muslim society the females are not allowed to go in the public without covering their body, face, and hair. In this sort of society you will observe the females in fully dresses. On the other hand, in a society where there are no Muslims, you will see that the females are not fully covering their body. And they don"t have some dress code. They can have a mini shorts with a tank top. They both will have different opinions on each other"s way of dressing or manners of doing things. But each of their actions and manners are base on what society they belong to.
Opinions vary from culture to culture. Such as, a guy living in India will not eat a cow because he beliefs base on this culture that cow is grandmother or someone else. A guy living in New York will eat that cow because he does not believe that the cow is grandmother or someone else. He just believes that cow is a cow.
(1.)Right and wrong are matter of opinion.
(2.)Different societies have different manners of doing things.
(3.)Opinions vary from culture to culture.
(4.)Therefore, morality is not relative.

In sum, variations in people are base on their opinions, culture, and society they live in.
Alex1991

Con

A moral absolutist believes and understands that for a society to function rules and restrictions must be present. It is redundant to think that a society can live without morality because a society wouldn"t be able to sustain itself by going against the universal rules that exist. Even if these rules are not written down they still apply because the universal order that exist explains that to survive every society must have some type of understanding from what they define as right and wrong. Without a society establishing what is wrong or right would lead to the society demolish their existence because of a clash of beliefs. A moral absolutist understands the concept that there must be an understanding of wrong and a right in every society.The idea that morality is relative has to exist because if it doesn"t exist, then we can conclude that the society could not survive obstacles for a long period of time.
Debate Round No. 1
shahroz231

Pro

But it is not about everyone following the rules because for one society one thing is right and for another its something totally opposite s right. Opinions vary from culture to culture. Such as, a guy living in India will not eat a cow because he beliefs base on this culture that cow is grandmother or someone else. A guy living in New York will eat that cow because he does not believe that the cow is grandmother or someone else. He just believes that cow is a cow.
Alex1991

Con

I agree that morality differ between societies and what could be viewed as wrong could easily be interpreted differently in another society like the example you gave about the cow having a connection to humanity compared to NY that we view cows as a source of food but what needs to be understood that we are still establish that is moral right and wrong by stating the cows interpretation. Rachels provides a similar example that shows that in many ways societies really do not differ from each other as much as we think they do but morality still exist. So for example in Rachels article she uses the example of murder to explain how morality is necessary for a society to survive. She does establish that there is a distinction in what every society views as murder being moral or immoral. But Rachel does explain that murder is a universal rule despite its cultural definition. So in different terms cultural relativist couldn"t ignore murder in one society because that is part of a lifestyle. A society that has not established if murder is moral or immoral, couldn"t be able to sustain themselves because people would be forced to become independent and force an individual to adapt to what is called "survival of the fittest" and feel that they are able to survive without the interaction of others in a attempt to live longer. This example provides support that morality is relative and that there is a universal connection with all other societies
Debate Round No. 2
shahroz231

Pro

There is no one common thing in a society because everyone views things differently. Such as a example i provided earlier about an individual who does not drink because he is rise in the family and society where they belief that drinking is not right and its a sin. That individual well view people who drink very differently compared to an individual who was born and rise in a society where drinking was a regular thing. So which brings me to my point again that people are different because of their culture, beliefs, and place they were born and rise in. Somethings are right for one at same time be totally wrong for another person. The Muslims belief in praying five times a day because of their culture and society they were born in compare to someone who does not pray 5 times a day was not rise in an culture, family, or society where they belief praying five times a day is necessary and if you don't do it its a sin.
Alex1991

Con

Such as an example as you provided about an individual who does not drink because he is rise in the family and society where they belief that drinking is not right and its a sin compared to a society which doesn't morally view under aged drinking as immoral, still doesn't ignore the fact that a moral structure does exist. So, if we wouldn"t agree that morality is relative and that there not a universal order for a society to exist, we would be ignoring that a human mind is able to evolve and adapt to new circumstances. By stating that moral relativism is true, we are acknowledging that it is correct for a society to differ moral and immoral and even though some society can be considered as an outdated belief systems like the example you stated which that society doesn't yet understand that alcohol can cause a long term affect to the child. In a society as history has shown, we as humans are time after time progressing and we have to understand these changes and recognize them to embrace humanity, as well as what we see as moral progression.
Debate Round No. 3
shahroz231

Pro

I am not discussing the age of the person who is drinking but the fact that their values and beliefs are totally different one another. And it doesn't necessarily means that the person who is drinking lives in a family or society where they do not know the system or rules of the society. They do know the rules and system of the society but they just want to follow their own beliefs and system. That again brings me back to the point that we as humans are totally different from each other base on our beliefs, systems, rules, and values. We as humans do know the times are changing but as a society we will do what we belief in and do not care about what others think or do because again we are different from society to society due to our culture and beliefs. For example times arr changing so does that means all Muslim females will dress like others. The guy in India will start to eat the cow. No! because we will follow our beliefs, system, values, and culture. This is why we will always remain different from each other.
Alex1991

Con

I apologize for miss understanding the age concept of your argument but by you stating that "They do know the rules and system of there society" you are contradicting yourself by actually agreeing with my argument that then there is an establishment of moral structure. It will be foolish for you to think that a society can live without morality because without morality a society wouldn"t be able to sustain itself by going against the universal rules that exist. Even though these rules change depending on society universal order still must be present and the understanding of what"s right from wrong needs to be establish for the society to be well organized and prosper. A moral absolutist understands this concept that there must be an understanding of wrong and a right in every society for the society to progress or else there will be disorder between the people in these society.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TheDarkMuffin 3 years ago
TheDarkMuffin
shahroz231Alex1991Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB as effimero gave no reasons.
Vote Placed by effimero89 3 years ago
effimero89
shahroz231Alex1991Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: ,,,