Morality: Is it Objective or Relative

I will now address it. 1. Rebuttal to The Origin of Morality(Master Morality v. Slave Morality) I think the problem with Frederick Nietzsche’s evaluation is that it commits the Genetic Fallacy. The Genetic Fallacy tries to falsify a belief, based upon how it originated. Even if that is true that morality originated from the most powerful, it does not necessarily make the belief in objective moral values and duties false. It would be like me saying to Con “You were born in America, so your probably a Democrat”. That may or may not be true about my opponent, but that doesn’t make Liberal Democracy false. A belief system must be judged by facts and evidence and truth content. [1] 2. Rebuttal to There are different forms of morality(Master Morality v. Slave Morality) The argument that Nietzsche uses to compare Master Morality vs. Slave Morality isn’t really relevant to the debate. For this type of argument is for determining the “Value” of an individual, but not so much if morality is objective or relative. Master morality is a "yea-saying" attitude where "good" and "bad" are equivalent to "noble" and "despicable" respectively. The master creates value. Slave morality is a "nay-saying" attitude or herd morality which holds to the standard of that which is useful or beneficial to the weak or powerless. The virtues are sympathy, kindness, and humility. Strong and independent individuals are evil. Either way, this argument that Nietzsche is using is asserting a standard based upon observation and moral perception. If Nietzsche assertion of Moral nihilism is true, then the words “good and “Evil wouldn’t exist. For Nietzsche wouldn’t be able to recognize, nor come to any kind of conclusion if moral truths don’t exist, the problem is that his observations only prove such a standard exists. [3] Point 3 Rebuttal: Because if the human being defines morality his way, it becomes subjective, the problem is in the reality in which we live in, our moral perceptions tell us there exists a standard of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. I believe my opponent has created a false dilemma here. Imagine I said, “Let’s define truth my way”. How would we know if truth exists? How would we even operate or function in a society with “what if’s? ” Objective morality is in no way defined as “manners” or “social etiquette”. For if we make morality like that, then it becomes relative. The problem is, that is not the way morality is. For we realize that a standard exists and we have an obligation amongst one another to do something. We realize actions are wrong or right through personal experience and our moral perceptions. This re-defining of morality, is a clear indicator to avoid the all-too-real reality of objective moral values and duties. [2] If my opponent believe his relativism on the basis of an argument that depends on the principle that if there is a certain kind of disagreement over some topic T, there is no objective truth about T. If that principle is true, the fact that there is such disagreement about his relativist conclusion implies that that conclusion is itself not objectively true, but only relatively so. So if my oponent's argument is good, then by his own standards he should not believe its conclusion is objectively true; or if he is entitled to believe its conclusion, it follows that the argument is not good. For example: Suppose I say that suicide is immoral, yet that in objective reality there is no such thing as moral wrongness. That is, suppose that nothing that anyone does really is morally wrong, although some actions seem wrong to us. Then my assertion of immorality is simply false, for it attributes to certain acts a property that nothing has. It is like an assertion that my socks were made by Santa’s niece. Nothing has the property of being made by Santa’s neice, and any statement that represents my socks as having it is therefore false. [4] Here’s another Example using an argument to show why moral-relativism is self-defeating. *P=Premise C=Conclusion P1. Moral relativists claim that there are no absolute moral standards. P2. The claim "All moral standards are relative" proposes an absolute moral standard. P3. To propose there are no absolute moral standards using an absolute moral standard is illogical. C. Therefore, the relativist's claim "All moral standards are relative" is illogical. Conclusion: It is very much obvious that Morality is “objective” than “relative” since we experience it through our moral perceptions. Moral relativism is impossible to hold consistently in reality, for it is self-defeating, inconsistent, and untenable. I would like to thank my opponent for this marvelous discussion/debate. Sources: [1] . http://www.nizkor.org... [2] . http://www.youtube.com... [3] . http://philosophy.lander.edu... [4] . http://philosophynow.org...