All Morals are Relative

I find this topic fascinating, and thus I look forward to a good debate. My opponent has presented an interesting argument, however it my intent to prove that is nothing more than that. =====Definitions===== Moral: 1. Relating to issues of right and wrong and to how individual people should behave. [1] 2. Able to distinguish right from wrong and to make decisions based on that knowledge. [1] Right: 1. Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature. [2] Universal: 1. Used or understood by everyone [3] Objective: 1. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices [4] Absolute: 1. viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic [5] =====Rebuttals===== My opponent has presented an argument in which he claims that there is a universal, or specifically objective, standard by which to judge all moral standards. His argument however has many flaws, all of which I will address. -----Rights vs. Morals----- My opponent states that all morals can be judged according to this standard, "the ability of the individual to govern his or her person and property. " According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from United Nations meeting in Paris on the tenth of December, 1948, "Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of person. [6]" This "objective moral standard" is actually human right, which is not a moral standard, objective or otherwise. -----Objective vs. Absolute----- My opponent states that his standard of morality is an objective one. This debate is about whether or not morals are absolute or not. By his own words, his standard is objective standard, not an absolute or universal one. -----Limitations----- My opponent has presented an argument stating that he has a universal standard by which to judge all morals. However, his standard is very limited. Morals, as I have defined, are ways that people judge right and wrong. This means that my opponent must prove his standard to apply to all moral dilemmas, not just one. For example, use of drugs falls within self-governance. If I choose to use drugs, that would be within the moral standard set by Con. However, most societies view drug use as immoral, therefore my opponents argument is invalid due to its limited nature. -----Inherency----- My opponent's argument is that, whether it is recognized or not, there is in fact a moral standard by which to judge all morals. Until he presented his argument, I was unaware of this standard. As the definition of morals state, I must be able to make a decision based on my knowledge of what is right and wrong. As I was unaware of this standard, I was therefore unable to use it to judge my actions as right or wrong. In order for my opponent's argument to hold up, he must show that his standard is known by all individuals, or for it to be universal, for it to be a valid argument. -----Derivation Argument----- This derivation is flawed based on logic. First, his logic flow states that happiness and greater happiness are justification for action. This is not how morality works. Simply because something makes you happy does not make it moral. As an example, sex makes people happy. It is an anatomical function which reinforces the desire to procreate. Despite its pleasurable nature, sex is frequently viewed as an immoral act. As a result, my opponents premise if flawed. Additionally, in his third application, my opponent states that it was immoral to tax a person for a video game. Based upon his criteria, taxes are in place to fund the government. The government in turn takes that money and distributes it among its expenditures, like disaster relief programs and aid to the poor. Taxing someone on a video game is perfectly moral to help people in need. My opponent's argument, while interesting, is flawed. It is not on topic in two ways, it is an extremely limited argument, and by it inherent flaws within the argument. Additionally, my opponent's reasoning is flawed, furthering the fact that his argument is invalid. =====Arguments===== -----Moral Evolution----- By virtue of the fact that my opponent's initial argument is flawed, his rebuttal here is also flawed. In addition, there are a few other major errors. One, self-governance has not been a constant. The idea of whether or not humans have free will is and has been a major subject of controversy for a great amount of time. Two, paralleling my rebuttal on Con's premise being limited, morality covers more subjects that just the right to self-determination. Morals encompass all of the ways people distinguish between right and wrong. Such morals have indeed evolved over time, meaning my argument remains valid. Finally, there are two logical errors in my opponent's rebuttal. The first, "Absolute morality has not changed over time; the human quest for morality has lead to the creation and destruction of several moral models. " This debate is between absolute morality and relative morality, which means that one cannot use absolute morality as a proof for their statements. The second, "Although chemists moved from the Dalton Cube to the Quantum Mechanical models of chemical bonding, the underlying scientific truth of it has never changed. In the same way, human knowledge of morality does not affect the objective morality. " The first statement here is true however the second part is not. Science is a search for an understanding of how things work, meaning that there is a right or wrong answer. Morality, as I have defined, is our ability to determine what is right and what is wrong, and then act upon that knowledge. This means that human knowledge is what determines human morals, so the statement is false. -----Meta-Ethical Differences----- "The existence of meta-ethical differences is irrelevant to the existence of moral truth, for our knowledge of something does not limit its existence. " While I find this statement to be very interesting, a witty statement proves nothing. Meta-ethics is our methodology. It is the way that we use our morals to act, meaning again that if we do not know something, it does not apply to our moral standards. For my opponent's statement to be true, he would have to show that his standard is universal and has been known or recognized in all moral systems. -----Universal Standards----- "I have given the objective standard of self-governance as an objective standard for morality. Because ethics and morality based on this standard are objectively correct, one who holds these ethics is morally superior to one that does not. " Once again, my opponent has used his burden of proof as a proof for his arguments. He has yet to prove that morals are absolute; therefore his statement is again false. =====Conclusion===== While Con has presented an interesting argument, I have shown that it nothing more than interesting. His arguments have several underling logical flaws in addition to several factual ones. I therefore stand by my position in that morals are relative. I now yield the floor to my opponent. [1] . http://encarta.msn.com... [2] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [5] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [6] www. ohchr. org