Moral Relativism is an erroneous ethical theory.

I suspect the main cause of disagreement is my opponent's failure to conceptually grasp what I mean between the two; it happens a lot and is in fact why prescriptive cultural relativism was popular among liberal college undergraduates a few decades ago (though it's still rampant among social science majors). ==================== Given definition of "moral relativism" ==================== My opponent still doesn't understand. Yes, my definition does state that one's ethical standards are based on culture and therefore subject to their individual choice - this is the subjective aspect of cultural relativism. HOWEVER, he has failed to examine the words ethical standards, morality, etc. of which I looked at in my previous round. This refers to a prescriptive code rather than a descriptive one. In other words, this is how the definition would look like in it's bare form: Moral relativism is the view that what is good or bad depends on an individual's culture. Moral relativism has a subjective aspect -- which you accurately deduce to be an individuals culture -- in connection to it's prescriptive nature. It is obvious that this definition is not descriptive moral relativism (DMR) but prescriptive moral relativism PMR. "Are you saying that it is impossible for a debate entitled "abortion is wrong" to ever be about descriptive ethics, and not normative ethics? " ----> YES. Descriptive ethics describes what people believe to be moral; it doesn't purport to argue what should be moral. There is nothing in the resolution "Abortion is wrong" to denote it's talking about human attitudes towards abortion - this is actually more for the fields of social sciences and statistics. The is in "abortion is wrong" implies an obligation, and thus a prescriptive analysis. "I cannot see the difference between your proposed descriptive theory of MR and your proposed prescriptive theory of MR. Why? Because both definitions can be applied to descriptive AND prescriptive ethics. " ----> As I've explained, the definitions usage of abstract terms such as ethical standard in exclusion of any indicator such as "an individual ethical standard" would infer it's referring to prescriptive ethics. ========================================= Prescriptive moral relativism results in a logical contradiction ========================================= "First off, the theory of Moral relativism provides both. In other words, the DMR is the same as the PMR. Why? Because the reason why people held their beliefs, is the same reason why the theory is correct. Which is why i invite you to define both PMR and DMR, and ill show you why both are the same. " ----> This betrays SERIOUS lack of understanding on your part. It seems you don't understand the fundamental distinction between a descriptive theory and a prescriptive one. Here, I will quote from an informative source that lays bear the important difference between the two - yes, both DMR and PMR can be categorized under moral relativism but I've evidently centered the focus on PMR: "Descriptive Ethics is a study of human behavior as a consequence of beliefs about what is right or wrong, or good or bad, insofar as that behavior is useful or effective. In a sense, morals is the study of what is thought to be right and what is generally done by a group, society, or a culture. In general, morals correspond to what actually is done in a society. .. Morals is best studied as psychology, sociology, or anthropology. Different societies have different moral codes. Morals is a descriptive science; it seeks to establish "what is true" in a society or group. .. This confusion between descriptive and prescriptive ethics occurs quite often by persons untrained in philosophical analysis. .. Normative Ethics or Prescriptive Ethics: the study of moral problems which seeks to discover how one ought to act, not how one does in fact act or how one thinks one should act. [1]" "Not sure if you read my argument. I said that it is NOT A = A, but rather, A ! = B. Subjective truth values change. " ----> There is no such thing as a subjective truth value; this would be an oxymoron. If you mean subjective values (such as liking ice cream), then this is true but thus IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION. Subjective values =/= truth values, this is such a fundamental distinction I'm not sure how you confuse the two. This can be demonstrated when my opponent asks what is the truth statement of "Star wars was the best movie ever made". This counterexample horribly fails on two accounts - the usage of best is ambiguous and thus the statement can't properly be evaluated, and if it were to be interpreted in terms such as "most entertaining" then this would NOT be a statement and thus NOT have a truth value. A truth value is "the truth or falsity of a proposition or statement[2]", whereas propositions are "expressions in language or signs of something that can be believed, doubted, or denied or is either true or false; the objective meaning of a proposition[3]. " As you can see from these definitions, my opponent can't be more wrong. Given this fact, my opponent's response to my syllogism crumbles. ==================== Conclusion and a few remarks ==================== I see now the major problem in this debate - my opponent lacks philosophical training, insofar as he has a weak grasp of philosophy to begin with. He makes an amateur mistake of muddling descriptive ethics and prescriptive ethics, misinterprets my definition despite the use of isolated abstract terms, and doesn't even understand the meaning of truth values and statements (again, statements are sentences that have truth values, so "vanilla is the best ice cream flavor" is not a statement). He scoffs at my advice to take a quick Wikipedia source and states this is where I get my knowledge about philosophy from. This is hilariously ironic of him. Not only is Wikipedia not my only source, but in fact he would know much more if he read from it - you are in no position to scoff at someone else's level of philosophical understanding when yours pales in comparison. I'm not trying to be intentionally rude here, but that's the matter of the fact - my opponent's strawmen are probably not intentional, but they are born from a lack of understanding. I've given an informative source about the bare distinction between DMR and PMR, and gave definitions fleshing out what truth values are. It should be obvious - VOTE PRO. ---References--- 1. . http://philosophy.lander.edu... 2. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...