morality is not relative
Debate Rounds (4)
Absolutists claim, "Morality is not relative" by following statements:
(1.)For relativists, different cultures have different moral codes.
(2.)For relativists, right and wrong are the matter of opinion of individual or community which varies among cultures.
(3.)Thus, morals are subjective for relativist.
(4.)If morals are subjective, there is no objective "truth" in morality.
(5.)If it is true that there is no objective "truth" in morality, then it itself cannot be verified and thus this conclude there is some "truth" in morality. Similarly, if it false that there is no objective "truth", then again there is some "truth" in morality which can be verified._____________________________________
(6.)According to James Rachel, there is no reason to assume that if there is some moral truth, then everyone should know it._________________________
(7.)Thus, right and wrong can be verified in some cases.
(8.)For example, murder is right if you are a relativist and wrong if not lawful for absolutist.
(9.)If you don"t believe in absolute morality, moral progress is not possible.
(10.)If you believe in moral relativism, then you deny efforts of moral reformers like Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King.
(11.)If you believe moral reformers like Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King did a good job by bringing change in society, then there is an objective standard which they followed.
(12.)If you believe in moral absolutism, you can admit that there is a foundation to morality.
(13.)If you believe in moral absolutism, you do not have to rely on the opinion of the majority, and then you have freedom of thought.
(14.)If you admit that there is foundation to morality, not need to rely on majority and having freedom of thought is good.
(15.)If you are comfortable with the consequences such as sacrifice tolerance, stand up for the right, you fight to be unimpressed by the psychological effect of the anthropological fact of moral variation and would agree with the fact absolutist might not know the basis of morality and not committed to the opinion that their own moral code is true._____________________________
(16.)Then, you should believe that morality is absolute.
(17.)If you believe morality is absolute, there is one standard of moral code; there exists a notion of right and wrong.___________________________
(18.)Thus, morality is not relative.
Benedict states that every society tries to combine itself together, while removing the behavior that is not suitable to that society"s taste or needs. This also shows that what one culture might think is right, it does not apply to other cultures.
To add to that, a grown person who would start living in a new culture, different from the one that shaped him, would be seen as abnormal in that new culture. And even though in his culture he was as normal as it gets, those instilled morals will hold him back in a different society from his own.
1.What members of one society thinks is right and wrong does not apply to other societies.
2.Morals change according to place, person, time and situation; whatever best fits a certain society.
3. Morals are different among all cultures and they are all equal.
4. There is not one set of morals that that can be applied to every society.
5. Therefore, morals are relative to cultures
The main argument is that cultural relativism is right because no set of moral standards in one society can top other society"s values or morals.
for a relativists, morals are subjective if that is the case there is no objective truth in morality.
If it is true that there is no objective "truth" in morality, then it itself cannot be verified and thus this conclude there is some "truth" in morality. Similarly, if it false that there is no objective "truth", then again there is some "truth" in morality which can be verified
According to James Rachel, there is no reason to assume that if there is some moral truth, then everyone should know it
Thus, right and wrong can be verified in some cases.
how would you say that murder is right of an innocent if say so then u must be agreeing with the actions of Hitler- holocaust.
Moral progress is possible in relativism. For instance, ancient Greece believed having sexual relations with younger boys was normal and acceptable. Centuries later, Greece does not believe this is normal anymore and considerers this to be an act of abuse. Greeks acknowledged that other societies had different morals.
As for your argument that a relativist cannot defend the killing of innocent children, I have to state that even though we have different beliefs, we still have the same values.
For instance, Eskimos commit infanticide in order for their society to exist because they are forced to live in a harsh environment and have to do what is right for them to save the members of their society. When a mother has to care for an infant, it takes away valuable time for her to have a son, and males in that society bring valuable resources that are vital to their survival.
"without moral absolutism societies cannot have a foundation of morality does not prove that morality is not relative"
yes, it is true I guess you are believing that without moral absolutism ther cannot be any foundation, ok here is my arguement if there is no foundation to a society there will be lot of confusion as anyone can do anything and there will be no ideal standard to look at. So, in order to say a judement of someone's action there has to be a standard morality.
secondly, you said "moral progress is possible in reativism."
my point is that i think you wanted to say that it is not as I see that a relativist do not judge anyone if one cannot judge there cannot be any progress.
I still have to disagree with your statement; it still does not prove that morality is not relative.
Societies do what is best in their situations for their survival. United States does not have to face hunger or extreme cold weather all year long like Eskimos do, therefore, they cannot judge what is going on in a different society where they do things for their survival.
For absolutists, since there is one standard of moral code, there exists a notion of what is right and wrong. It can compare the practices of different culture based on its moral code.Absolutist justifies that certain illegitimate practices like slavery exist in earlier civilization as a matter of ignorance of truth.
if there is no standard then we would have no logical right to claim to resist crime because then we should have to consider minority groups of criminals relatively as good as majority innocents.
Thus, ethical relativity is a disaster because lack of standards leads to confusion in judging present society because then everyone is right (which is not true) and thus one should believe ethics is absolute.
thus, morality is not relative
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.