DCL: Cultural Relativism

Eskimos The point that my opponent attacks here is point 2: There exist no universal precepts, truths, or beliefs, and/or no objective standards that unite all such codes or allow us to judge one against the other My opponent uses Eskimos and Americans as an example. There are two problems here. He links the two by showing that they both abide by consequential ethics. However as this premise is a follow up of point 1 in the definition of cultural relativism we have to view the context. The first premise states that different human cultures have different moral codes. The second goes on to say that there exist no universal precept, truths, or beliefs, and/or no objective standards that unite all such codes or allow us to judge one against the other. It should be noted that P2 refers to “all such codes” meaning that one example (ie. the Americans and the Eskimos) is not sufficient to negate the point. This means that I’ll move on to the last part of my opponent’s argument which states that there must be a common framework between all moral codes or else they would be beyond our comprehension. This logic doesn’t follow. Take the example of an atheist and a theist. An atheist is somebody that does not believe in the existence of God [1]. A theist is somebody that believes that God does exist [2]. The two cultures are both this simple in their definitions and are completely different. The same applies to nihilists and moral absolutists and various other contrasting belief systems. Having a common truth or objective standard is not necessary for comprehension. My opponent will need to do more than assert it to affirm it. The second problem is semantical - particularly with the word unite however I won’t choose to zoom in on that particular problem in my rebuttals. Humanities Moral Building blocks (and seals) DRIVE TO SURVIVE My opponent makes an axiomatically false claim in this contention. He states that there are moral rules. Particularly using murder as an example. In two major moral codes / cultures murder is not wrong (at least not wrong as a moral rule). Those are ethical nihilists and anarchists. In ethical nihilism, nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral - so my opponent’s example of murder being wrong as a moral rule is false [3]. Furthermore, we can apply my opponent’s example to the political belief / moral philosophy of anarchism. In this belief system, there is no state (and therefore no laws) so whilst murder can be frowned upon in anarchistic societies, there is certainly no law against it and it is not intrinsically considered to be immoral in this philosophy [4]. My opponent’s attempt at a pre-emptive rebuttal to the point above is virtually a copy of his source 1 (see page 6/7). Anyhow, the argument is still flawed. Just because people won’t feel safe in societies without murder, doesn’t mean that these societies should be considered to be non-existent. My opponent’s burden still requires him to prove that there are “objective standards that unite all [moral] codes”. The objection regarding the majority believing that murder is wrong doesn’t change the fact that my opponent’s only way to object to this premise to show that there are objective standards that unite ALL codes. Most =/= all. COMMON BIOLOGY Pain and love are not intrinsically good or bad actions. Whilst subjective opinions within specific cultures may have similar subjective beliefs with other people that belong to different cultures, the teaching of the cultures themselves can be different in regards to their approaches to pain and love. Going back to ethical nihilism, due to their being nothing that is intrinsically right or wrong in ethical nihilism - suffering is not intrinsically right or wrong; good or bad. Going back to the words that my opponent uses to define cultural relativism (specifically in point 2 - which he seems to be addressing here), he uses the words “all [moral] codes”. You cannot say that a universal truth exists amongst all moral codes when there are exceptions to it. My opponent makes an odd claim, stating that “while their may be variations in the application of or loopholes in this principle, the principle itself is universal. ” This doesn’t make sense and is incorrect (not just grammatically). We are talking about universal truths, precepts, objective standards, etc. uniting moral codes. The universal truth my opponent brings up here are biological similarities between opinions on pain/suffering and love. The point my opponent needs to affirm is that there are universal truths uniting moral codes. The key word here being moral. So the fact that mirror neurons exist is irrelevant since this debate isn’t about whether two cultures can experience the same sensations or feel the same experiences - it is about moral codes being united by universal truths. Just because one can experience pain, does not mean that these two people have the same moral opinions on pain and the morality of it. So the principle is not universal. The point on empathy is more of a jump to conclusions than an actual observable fact. This is the syllogism used from our knowledge of the mirror neurons and human empathy: P1: Mirror neurons allow us to experience specific things that others feel - ie. pain. P2: Mirror neurons exist in the vast majority of humans. C1: Because we can experience what others feel, we know what it feels like when they feel negative emotions and as a result feel empathy as we know how they must be feeling. Now this logic works for most people (which is why this logic is generally accepted - despite it being not entirely accurate). Though there are groups of people that, even with mirror neurons, do not necessarily feel empathy. Egoists, for example, believe that moral actions are those that are done in the best interest of themselves. In the belief of egoism, the believers do not necessarily have mirror neuron problems or psychological issues. They simply experience what the other person is feeling and they learn from the other person’s experiences so that it doesn’t happen to them. Their is no reason for them to be kind to the other person as that won’t necessarily lead them to self satisfaction (though there are exceptions, even in the belief of egoism) [5]. Or if we take an even more extreme believe - metaphysical solipsism. This is the belief that only the self exists and that everybody else is feigning consciousness and that they are the only conscious being. In this belief system it would be highly illogical to empathize with others as they would be feigning consciousness - and therefore, feigning pain or whatever negative emotions they are supposedly feigning to be experiencing [6]. SHARED EXPERIENCE This is thoroughly refuted due to the above. Just to quickly expand though, just because we have all shared experiences such as being lied to, or being robbed, does not mean that we all share the same moral views on them. Particularly when there are cultures and moral codes that people belong to that dictate what their moral beliefs should be - regardless of their experiences (such as the example of the mother who still loved their son’s murderer because Jesus preached that you should love your enemy and allow God to judge people) [7]. Sources [1] . https://www.google.co.uk... [2] . https://www.google.co.uk... [3] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [6] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [7] . http://www.bbc.co.uk...