No culture is superior to another
Debate Rounds (3)
Its often seen as the western style of government - individualistic and capitalistic -with large technological advances are seen as superior to other countries or styles of management of the world. I mean; wouldn't the average (western) human being scoff tribes around the world as inferior to the superior might and supposed intellectual, moralistic and technological staple the USA or the UK are? Its always been widely believed that tribes are uncivilized and savages inferior to the West https://en.wikipedia.org... . Even Charles Darwin believed that Europeans were superior 'because of morals' compared to 'Savages' who don't even understand the idea of morals http://www.racismreview.com... I am promoting a different view towards this, supporting that no country can be inherently better then the other meaning that the USA/UK is not superior to an anarchy. North Korea or any country with significantly less progress then the West. This also means the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is completely wrong because its imposing its beliefs on other countries which do not hold the same beliefs. Any supposed beliefs stemming from perceived superiority, morality or intellectual is just perceived as being more important which does not necessarily mean its true. For example the UDHR tries to get rights for children in every single country often trying to prevent child soilders. However this is wrong due to childhood being a social construction -https://revisesociology.com...- and every society having different ways of raising their children meaning a society can't impose their views on the other because every society has different ways of raising their children; it is completely relative thus neither is superior and any perception otherwise is indeed perceived.
Sources in support:
Sources for against:
This also argues against my arguement for a more biological approach: https://en.wikipedia.org...
A culture can be deemed superior or inferior based solely upon morals. You might live in a rich neighborhood, with adequate military protection, technology, and knowledge, yet if everyone is immoral fools it will be Hell.
The best way to judge the morals of a society is how it treats the weakest, animals.
"A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members"
~Pope John Paul II
Morals are paramount to all other characteristics of a society. Therefore, some cultures are obviously more moral than others. From the below website we can see how various countries rate in animal welfare.  As you can see there is rating from G the worst to A the best.
United Kingdom and Austria have the best protections for animals with an A rating. Belarus and Iran have the worst a G rating. To me it is crystal clear that the United Kingdom and Austria are superior to Belarus and Iran. Thanks for debating.
http://www.merriam-webster.com... I will also define moral because its very relevant "Concerned with or derived from the code of behaviour that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society" www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/moral
As for your arguement you assume there's one set of objective morals which are universalistic and objective. However I will dispute this it is well known that the west have massively different moral norms to other countries or tribes. This difference means that there is no one objective universal moral because it varies universally as shown in here http://www.revue-klesis.org... in other words morals are subjective.
Also even if there is a God (to which I doubt) and he gave us an objective moral system. However so did the devil or other human beings and who's morals to believe is subjective - no opinion is inherently more right or wrong then the other. So thus it is subjective.
This also leads to the latter part of your argument since morals aren't universal or objective you're judging it from a western standpoint and thus from a bias standpoint so your view is less valid (someone from the east would view their culture as superior). This all means that morals don't make society inherently more important then the other because they vary. You disagree with me because you've been socialised into western morals thus you would believe them to be very important and objective but its different realistically and universally thus just because you perceive its more superior doesn't make it so. I will give an example of this: someone in the UK were raised with morals attached to the west and someone else in North Korea are socialised into the morals of the culture. Neither is superior to each other even if the North Korean believed it or vice versa as it all perception.
The reality of it is morals are objective. Sure, there are a few powerful and morally devoid people who think forcing people into slavery is moral. Yet, human trafficking is universally accepted as illegal and immoral, except for a few.  
People may not universally agree on what flavor of tea is best, but certain issues like homicide and slavery seem universally accepted as immoral. As I perceive the situation, people who think morals are subjective, either have not put much thought into the issue or are morally devoid their-selves. There are many issues that seem like a good idea at the time, but then when you think it through falls apart.
Thanks for debating.
Again the Human Rights Declaration or the United Nations which you linked to was made by western society and is often used to impose values on to other societies. Just because there's been efforts to establish morals across all societies does not make that an objective moral it will, and always will be subjective. You're also solely looking into the modern world which is entirely different and has massively changed from historical times. Slavery is not universally immoral it has been done in a ton of societies https://www.marxists.org... in these societies it has been deemed morally acceptable. I can also list tons and tons of societies which homicides have included a central part of their society. E.g. China(mainly trying to emulate European success with the industrial revolution), Russia (Stalin), Great Britain (the empire) , a few African countries etc.
Okay I'm going to take a step back. I will make a list and you can argue against this list trying to disapprove and affirming your own ideas. And voters can vote based on who they think won the argument.
- Objective morality stems from well-being as you said so your self there shouldn't be slavery. Yet who dictates this well being we do! What is the perfect well-being tends to be judged from interpretation and emotions and thus subjective.
- Lets take a more overview of it there are probably billions and billions and billions of species and intelligent life around the universe. Humans are one of the species and the objective morality is central around human welfare. And since this the objective morality, it must apply to every single species if they do not follow this moral code then they're immoral... you can see how incorrect this is and indeed moral is bound to be different for each alien species.
- There's no single universal moral found across every society or culture even murder was deemed socially acceptable in the peak of the Soviet Union (Stalin was very paranoid), tons of subcultures and cannibalistic tribes you can also perhaps even make the stretch to Aztecs and also read Broken April by Ismail Kadare. It's about the blood feuds between clans in Albania in the 1920s-30s. The murder of men from one clan by those of another is not only legal but expected and even glorified. Also murder is found to be outlawed in so many tribes because its logical, the tribes that do allow murder have probably gone extinct. And we have established that slavery and homicides are quite common actually even ants do it. (Yes ants do slavery which is pretty cool actually). For more information: http://www.revue-klesis.org... (not on how ants do slavery you have to search that I'm afraid :( )
- Also I'm going to make a loop back to how people say God made the objective moral code. Even if God was real so did Satan and other human being each making a moral code. Who's to believe? The answer is subjective none is more Important then the others.
- It is undeniable that every society has a different way of socialising their children. X has a different way from Y thus X's morals are not superior to Y because they have completely different beliefs and any perceived importance over the other is just perceived and is subjective. Any other belief is mainly from arrogance of their opinion and morals thinking they're superior to other cultures (mainly stemming from religion).
All this eventual points to that morality is indeed subjective and no culture is superior to another
For a good read that supports my argument but its a fascinating read nonetheless is https://coelsblog.wordpress.com...
Thank you for debating :D.
It has been fun and interesting talking to you.
For example, many primitive tribes legally allowed for human sacrifices, yet this is considered highly immoral by most people in the world. What this shows is that people sometimes are so worried about meeting their basic needs that they set aside their morals for a bit. Yet, as we move away from day to day survival we can pull the lens back and get a better idea of what is moral and what is not.
Just because some megalomaniac degrees that action z is moral, doesn't mean it is. As for other species, we have a pretty good idea of what their needs are. It would be unfair to hold up a coyote to human's standards. Nevertheless we shouldn't allow for arbitrary cruelty towards the coyote from humans.
As for aliens, we will cross that bridge when we get there. We have no idea if humans will blow themselves up before meeting aliens or not. For all we know the aliens could be practically identical to humans.
Nations are built upon the past. Social change is slow. I think we know the difference between right and wrong, we just have not found the time and effort to match our nations values and laws with morality. There will always be a vested interest trying to hold back social justice.
Just because we haven't defeated this vested interest, don't mean morals are subjective, we just need more people protesting factory farms.
As for war, we make compromises between morals and survival. I think on some level they knew war was wrong, but a necessary evil. To compensate for warriors feeling queasy about killing they glorified war. Think about it, if they thought war was moral, they would not need to glorify war.
In fact, I think that's what most social justice issues come down to. Survival and inconvenience versus morals. "I don't' want to lose my job, go factory farming." Therefore, the issue isn't about morality but the factory worker not wanting to lose his/her job.
Thanks for the debate.
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.