All Morals are Relative

I look forward to a good debate. =====Rules===== This debate will be one of moral relativism. The Pro side will be arguing that morals are relative and the Con side will argue that that morals are not relative. Please avoid the use of insults and avoid becoming angry or petty. This is a debate, so please maintain your dignity. Finally, this debate will hold both sides to a legal standard of proof for all evidence submitted. If you intend to use something to support your arguments, be sure that it is both valid and sustainable. =====Opening Statement===== Morals are easily one of the most debated subjects. These debates often take shape in debates of religion, politics, or social norms, however they all "boil down" to the same arguments; my ideas are right, and your ideas are wrong. To that end, it is my position that no ones morals are superior or "more right" than another's. =====Arguments===== My arguments will parallel concepts found in Normative Relativism, and will be three major ideas; moral evolution, Meta-ethical differences, and universal standards. -----Moral Evolution----- Morals and beliefs systems change. This is particularly true of religious positions. As time has progressed, set of morals have adapted and evolved to become more modern and more relevant. This change in and of itself is proof that morals are not absolute. What was once considered to be moral will often change and be viewed as amoral. For example, in world wide communities "white" individual, slavery was once considered to be acceptable and ethical. Slavery, within the last 200 years, has been abolished in the majority of the world, and is considered to be immoral and even evil. However, despite this change, people from 200 years ago believed themselves to be moral individuals, just as people now consider themselves to be moral for not having slaves. This change in ethical and moral standards demonstrates that morals are not absolute and in fact, relative. -----Meta-Ethical Differences----- Meta-Ethics, as a philosophical study, is questioning what is good and what is evil. Within every culture, there is usually a Meta-ethical standard, which states that certain behaviors are good and certain ones are wrong. This standard is usually local to one group of individuals, however globalization has had a significant impact on that. In modern society, specifically European and American societies, there are specific "absolutes," such as killing is wrong. However, Meta-ethics also pertains to methodology and problem solving. As an example, when given a problem that does not have an absolute answer (such as a math problem), a person will rely upon their Meta-ethical standards to determine the best possible out come. However, just as behaviors and religions are not universal, Meta-ethics are not universal. The heterogeneous nature of Meta-ethics means that people with have differing methodologies and ideologies. And example of this difference is opinion is pornography. In the US, exposing ones self is considered to be inappropriate behavior. In places in Europe, public nudity is not considered to be as socially unacceptable. It is this difference in opinions which is my second argument. Meta-ethical relativity states that when two people with different Meta-ethical standards are presented with the same problem in which there is no definite outcome, they will choose different methods to solve the problem. The end result of either method will likely be the same, therefore either method is acceptable; thus their morality and ethics are both equal and relative. -----Universal Standards----- My final argument is that there is no moral arbiter or set of universal standards to judge one set of morals to be superior to another, therefore no individual can prove that they have superior morals to another. =====Conclusion===== All of my three arguments clearly state that morals and ethics are relative.