Moral Relativism is an erroneous ethical theory.

It seems my opponent has a profound lack of understanding at what I'm trying to argue for - I'm not sure if it's willful ignorance or something else, but it should be painstakingly clear that this debate was centered in an normative/meta-ethical perspective, not a descriptive one. ==================== Given definition of "moral relativism" ==================== My opponent states that my definition gives no indication of a prescriptive definition, but a simple examination debunks this. To copy-paste, it states that moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. In other words, what is moral and immoral is culturally based, i.e. subject to factors such as culture, upbringing, environment, etc. This definition is simply stating that ethical standards are determined by culture - not that PEOPLE'S ethical standards are determined by their morality but that ethical standards themselves are determined by culture. After all, everyone can believe action X is immoral when in actuality it is moral. "Infact, when reading the topic of this debate, "Moral Relativism is an erroneous ethical theory", such a debate topic points towards "What is this" rather than the opposing question of "Should be this"." ----> What a facetiously incorrect way of reading the resolution. The resolution itself is descriptive, but the subject matter is prescriptive. If I wrote a debate entitled "Abortion is wrong", would you claim that this is a debate on descriptive ethics and not normative ethics? Of course not, this would be folly. Likewise, there is no flaw on my part to say that MR is a flawed theory, and show how this is so (by pointing out it's inadequate normative/meta-ethical aspects). "However, my opponent seems to be implying that although moral relativism is likely correct, it should not be correct, which is quite puzzling to me." ----> Strawman. I stated that while descriptive moral relativism is true, the prescriptive version is not. I'm arguing against the prescriptive version, NOT the descriptive one. ==================== Prescriptive moral relativism results in a logical contradiction ==================== "Although I have no problem moving this debate to your intended course of arguments, I see now that your argument applies to both the descriptive and prescriptive versions of Moral Relativism." ----> Another strawman - you love doing these huh? Not only did I specifically state in this section that it was an argument against PMR, but if you were to understand my argument then you'd see that it no way applies to DMR. DMR states how people hold their values, but it does not say if such values are correct or not - let alone able to be correct or not. "I have a problem with P3/P4. Truth values to things that are subjective, which is the case of moral relativism, depends on the perspective. In logic, the truth value can depend on its specific interpretation or logical system." ----> I dare you to defend this claim. A = A can change via different logical systems? I hardly think so, this is an extraordinary claim that I beg evidence for. "In the case of morality, truth values can change depending on the goal that the specific interpreter wishes to pursue. If my goal is to provide the least amount of suffering to each human being, then obviously my stance on Moral values with questions such as Slavery, will be against. The truth value of such a stance, would be "True" to me, but it will be "false" to someone who wishes to achieve a different goal. " ----> It seems you don't even know what truth value means. All statements have a truth value, meaning they can be right or wrong (in the epistemological sense). So no, truth values CAN NOT change depending on the goal of a character. They are objective, and whether or not their true nature is known to human knowledge is irrelevant. "The only conclusion I could possibly bring, is that you simply do not wish to be shot down so early in the debate, and thus resorted to separate the descriptive and prescriptive aspects of Moral Relativism, in order to avoid having to discuss the obvious fact that Moral Relativism is correct." ----> Sorry if I attempted to show that there is SIGNIFICANTLY IMPORTANT distinction between the two. If you would take a quick Wikipedia search on the topic, you'd realize that talking about descriptive ethics precludes you from a normative ethical discussion, and vice versa. ==================== Conclusion and a few remarks ==================== "Hitler, on the other hand(And those who were under him), believed that what he was doing, was the correct thing, and that his extermination of the Jews was justified. I agree with you. I say that Hitler was wrong. But that is only because I judge Hitler by my own moral standards. I made the decision from my first-person perspective." ----> Just because Hitler thought differently about the ethical aspects of genocide DOES NOT MEAN MORALITY IS RELATIVE. This would be an incredible position to take, to say that the truth value of a claim is thrown away when an opposing opinion arrives. If we are to take this at face value, then this brings us not only to epistemological relativism but also to metaphysical relativism. Since reality is NOT in flux, my opponent can't be more wrong. On an ending note, I am quite astounded by the brevity of misunderstanding and lack of understanding on my opponent's part. Not only does he fail to grasp what the debate topic is about, he even fails to understand terms such as "truth value". If he can't bother to understand my arguments correctly, how can we hope for a clean, facilitated discussion? Since it's nearing the end, I doubt such a discussion can come about. I will say that while I could've made the resolution even more specific by including "prescriptive" or "meta-ethical" -- since I'm fine with arguing against either version -- it becomes very clear what I'm arguing against given the definition of moral relativism. It clearly refers to ethical standards being adjudicated by culture, which I take to be false.