It doesn't matter whether a society is morally right

First round is acceptance and definitions.

Thank you Pro for bringing an important subject to the debating floor. And in saying that, I'm (Con) looking forward to a learning experience in a constructive debate.

Pro stated, “First round is acceptance and definitions.”

I accept and the definition follows:

Please bear with me while I cover a little history on the evolution of morality. Just after the Big Bang, the Second Law of Thermodynamics became the evolutionary engine throughout the universe. At the macro level, Constructal Law is an outgrowth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, explains how everything that moves or flows, whether animate or inanimate, naturally evolve in ways that facilitates such movement.
http://www.amazon.com...

Constructal Law for the animate in the evolution of life, relative to facilitating movement, is dependent on all “Life” having the freedom (“Liberty”) in the pursuit of survival (positive-feedback); otherwise, there is no life. Positive-feedback for humans, can be summarized to include the emotion of “Happiness,” in addition, survival is a prerequisite for “Happiness.” This primeval working function of life having the freedom in the pursuit of survival, is the foundation to the Natural Selection Process. Unbeknownst to Thomas Jefferson (one of the founding Fathers of the US), he discovered, not developed, this primeval working function, and he claimed a polished version within the scope of humanity, giving it the label of Unalienable Rights as in “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Therefore, all life, from a single cell to humans is dependent on this primeval working function and generalized to become known as life's Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of positive-feedback (survival, etc., Happiness for us humans).”
http://www.amazon.com...

The evolution of morality can be seen in the subtle nonverbal communication between a parent and infant as it flows through life's Unalienable Rights in harmonious inter-species symmetry. This symmetry is apparent when we hear the cries from the screeching chirps within a nest, to the whimpering pups in a den, to the cries of a human infant along with the feelings those sounds evoke; the sounds throughout the tree of life. In many species, a newborn cries instinctively, elevating its cry to a scream when something is wrong—such as hunger triggered by the genetically programmed need to pursue food. Among humans, the parent is instinctively annoyed or alarmed by this cry and, in distress, tries to seek mutual Happiness by catering to the infant's desires. In contrast, there is something quite pleasant about the sight of a smiling infant, as it naturally invites the sharing of Happiness. The behavioral difference between a smile and a cry are the tenets of right and wrong, the primitives of Morality.

When two or more humans form a group, the group becomes alive as a separate entity with its own Unalienable Rights. The pursuit of group Happiness through goodwill and kindness leads to a mutual moral respect for the Unalienable Rights of all the members within the group. Goodwill is a conservative force that promotes order, stability, and harmony through the pursuit of group-wide positive-feedback. Over time, group-wide positive-feedback is the genesis of traditions, values, beliefs, language, etc., the norms of society. These norms are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing its culture. A moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to those norms. The individual in a civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested norms.

Morality is the living thread that runs through the tapestry of a civil society.

Morality is doing the right thing to embrace one's Unalienable Rights relative to social norms. Immorality is doing the wrong thing, causing distress of one's Unalienable Rights relative to social norms.

Empirically one could observe, whether a society is morally going in the right direction. For example, conversing with a number of folks from the “Greatest Generation,” one could get an idea on the direction the US is moving relative to morality.

Morality is like a force that holds a society together. If a society does not have a good understanding of this moral force, it could fall apart. How long could a society function or achieve Happiness without morality? As morality declines throughout a society, more complicated laws emerge to keep the peace, institutional public surveillance becomes commonplace, an increase in armed law-enforcement is noticeable, and more convoluted regulations appear to circumvent economic corruption. Complicated laws morph into plundering dictates, while regulations kill economic freedom. In addition, the leaders of a social institution (the government) controlling such a society are also part of this population having similar moral standing. If the government controls education, then the moral decline will result in a tyrannical runaway loop.

John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, once said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” http://www.john-adams-heritage.com...

Today the US is in a post-constitutional soft tyranny era. For example, my Friend Pro probably did something “illegal” today. If the government wants to incarcerate Pro, or spoil his day, or freeze his bank accounts, etc., they could because there are so many laws on the books, on the average we commit 3 felonies a day.
http://www.amazon.com...
http://blogs.loc.gov...

Funny how many in the US, still feels they live in a free country. The price a nation pays for lack of moral education.

In conclusion, it does matter whether a society is morally right; otherwise, the civil society will eventually self-destruct to an uncivil state of existence.

Societies develop with their rules as that societies morals. Their is no universal morality, only will to power. If another society believes another society is wrong it is only true if that society destroys the other. It is only subjective while the other ideal still exists. Societies continually adapt and change over time, further promoting an evolution of societal forms. The only correct societal form is one in which it has destroyed all other societies, whether other societies thought it to be moral or not.

The title of this debate, being the stake in the ground is, “It doesn't matter whether a society is morally right.” Con's argument is, for a society to exist the members within that society must be “morally right,” albeit imperfectly, relative to the norms of that society, otherwise, the society will eventually self-destruct to an uncivil state of existence.

There is no mention in the title of this debate of comparing the norms of one society relative to another, or a debate on some “universal” code of conduct for all societies. In the opening of Round 1, Pro did not elaborate on any extensions of this debate beyond the title.

Con's presentation in Round 1, relative the debate title, concludes that it does matter whether a society is morally right.

Con's argument is, for a society to exist the members within that society must be “morally right,” albeit imperfectly, relative to the norms of that society, otherwise, the society will eventually self-destruct to an uncivil state of existence.

There is no mention in the title of this debate of comparing the norms of one society relative to another, or a debate on some “universal” code of conduct for all societies. In the opening of Round 1, Pro did not elaborate on any extensions of this debate beyond the title.

This is the point of the debate. No matter if one society is said to be wrong by another it does not make the society wrong. Their is no right in a society, only its ability to prevail over other societies.

I regret to say, Pro should have stated his definition of this debate in Round 1 not in Round 3 by Pro's following statement, "This is the point of the debate. No matter if one society is said to be wrong by another it does not make the society wrong. Their is no right in a society, only its ability to prevail over other societies."

In Round 1, Pro left the definition open for Con by his statement, "First round is acceptance and definitions."

Con's definition in Round 1, falls within the scope of the debate's title and therefore, Pro must argue why a society could exist while the members of that society are morally wrong relative to the social norms of that society.

Even the first two comments advised Pro "to clarify morally right" (by InnovativeEphemera), or "it requires to specify to whom" (by Cold-Mind). Since Pro left the "acceptance and definitions" open for Con to defined, Con took the lead in defining the debate's scope.

This conflict between Pro and Con, on the debate's definition, will be decided by the voters.

Pro's last sentence stated, “This is to mean the society in whole being wrong, which must in fact be judged by people outside the society.”

A society is judged by other societies when that society invades another. When a society is at peace with the rest of the world, and people are happy within the society, then that “society is morally right.” Other societies have no business or desire to criticize the cultural norms or moral code of conduct of a society where its citizens are generally happy and at peace with other societies.

For example, let's take two neighboring societies each having a typical family size of members. One society lives in Pro's home and the other lives in Con's home. Pro's family are happy and following the norms of their religion and consider themselves “morally right.” Con's family are also happy and following the norms of their religion and also view themselves being “morally right.” However, Pro believes Con's religion is morally wrong and Con feels the same way about Pro's. Yet they live in peace within the neighborhood.

So it does matter whether a society is morally right; otherwise, the family of either Pro or Con will have a broken home of unhappiness.

In closing, Con is in no position to say that Pro is living a morally wrong life, as long as Pro and Con mutually embraces each other's Unalienable Rights when in the company of each other. And this is the “moral right” thing to do, while being good neighbors.

Finally, since we are good neighbors, Con looks forward in meeting Pro again on the debating floor.