DA Tournament: The Most Accurate Meta-Ethical Theory. Moral Realism (Pro) vs Moral Relativism (Con)

Affirming moral relativism. I will put forward arguments affirming moral relativism in this round. After each argument has been put forward I'll leave it to my opponent to pick apart for the next round. Defining moral relativism . Moral relativism is an umbrella term that encompasses many different philosophical beliefs on the subject. Fundamentally, all moral relativists would agree that moral judgements can only be judged to be 'right' or 'wrong' relative to the moral norms of whatever society you happen to be living and that moral judgements can't be proven to be objectively superior to any other. Branches of moral relativism . [Meta-ethical] moral relativism: moral judgements are relative to different perspectives and aren't true or false in any absolute sense. Non-realism: There is no such thing as an objective moral order that we can compare the 'right' or 'wrongness' of our moral beliefs against. Non-cognitivism: Moral judgements don't have an inherent truth value in the same way that “sky is blue” has a truth value. There is an indivisible divide between 'fact' vs. 'values'. Descriptive relativism: It's a fact that moral beliefs, practices, and customs vary between cultures. Some societies view gay marriage as acceptable while others don't. Many of these definitions overlap in some ways but have subtle philosophical differences. For example, non-realism is an ontological claim (this 'is' reality) while non-cognitivism is an epistemic claim (this can't possibly be 'known' or 'verified' with reality). All branches of moral relativism subscribe to meta-ethical moral relativism. It's also worth noting that moral relativism has a sound foundation in nihilism before starting my next section. Nihilism: all moral values and judgements are essentially meaningless or baseless. [1].Moral relativism is a viewpoint that has a logical foundation in existential nihilism. Existential Nihilism is the notion that nothing has any ultimate meaning, purpose, or reason for existence. The universe would be entirely indifferent to our moral judgements. Moral relativism is the most parsimonious explanation . Moral relativism converges with evolutionary theory. If we accept that life has evolved from whole taxonomic groups over large periods of time, then human morality is ultimately the product of natural selection. If human morality is the product of natural selection, morality is an emergent result of this process. If morality is emergent, then morality can't be true or false in any absolute sense and is relative depending on what species you happen to be. We know that it's immoral to eat and kill our signifcant other after mating but if we were a black widow it'd be perfectly normal. If morality is argued to be unique to human beings (1) why do animals seem to behave according to moral codes (2) why would *only humans* have a set of moral codes that describe objective features of the world to the exclusion of all other species? When weighing moral relativism against moral realism to see which is most accurate, it's important to see which theory is most supported explicilty or implicitly with evolutionary theory. The data shows that the evidence supporting evolution is simply overwhelming. Its no surprise then that 99.9% of scientists accept the theory of evolution.These evidences include but are not limited to: transitional form fossils anatomical & molecular vestiges molecular evidence shared DNA between species [2] Moral relativism is the only meta-ethical worldview that is parsimonious with evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is firmly established. Therefore moral relativism is the most acccurate meta-ethical worldview. Egoism . I am only going to affirm descriptive egoism. Descriptive egoism is the notion that people are motivated by their own desires and self-interests and results in forming their meta-ethical worldview. Our desires and self-interests are what forms our moral values. For example, if I desire life, I will place value on life. Therefore I can understand others who have this desire and this results in a shared moral code between us. Since 'desire' isn't objective, then it follows that our values are not objective. If our values are not objective, it's impossible for our moral code to be anything other than relative depending on our desires. Egoism was a tenet held by Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, who argued that the most efficient economy is a free market because supply and demand are equal since everyone seeks their own self-interests. Descriptive relativism . Descriptive relativism holds as fact that moral beliefs vary from society to society. This is obvious. Some societies view cows as sacred, others don't. Some societies accept gay marriage, other's dont. In Yemen child marriage is permissible but in other societies it isn't. Moral values are factually different across socities. This more accurately aligns with moral relativism as the true meta-ethical worldview. The logic behind this is that if there are moral differences between societies it undermines the claim that there are 'objective' moral facts and shows goes to show that morality in one society is no superior to morality in another. There's no coherent alternative to moral relativism . Coherent: (of an argument, theory, or policy) logical and consistent. Since moral relativism is ultimately built upon a nihilist foundation, the only alternative to moral relativism is moral realism. There are good reasons to affirm that moral relativism is the only coherent explanation compared to the alternative. Non-cognitivism . If one were to argue that there are 'moral facts' they must be able to validate those facts apart from their personal bias of their desires and self-interests. If there is something is 'factual' or an 'objective feature' of the world it exists apart from human opinion. Descriptive egoism holds that it is impossible to verify the truth of 'it's wrong to lie' in the same way one could verify the truth in the claim 'bacteria is microscopic' because there's no verifiable 'truth value' in moral claims. Value judgements can never logically be equated with factual statements. Thus, there's an individisible divide between our personal moral values as a construct of subjective desire vs. objective moral facts. Ethnocentrism . “Ethnocentrism is the tendency to believe that one's ethnic or cultural group is centrally important, and that all other groups are measured in relation to one's own.” [3] This means that our notions of 'right' and 'wrong' are thought to be matter-of-fact but are irreparably conditioned by our culture, customs, and social norms. Here's something that illustrates that point: “The historian Herodotus tells the story of how the Persian king Darius asked some Greeks at his court if there was any price for which they would be willing to eat their dead father’s bodies the way the Callatiae did. The Greeks said nothing could induce them to do this. Darius then asked some Callatiae who were present if they would ever consider burning their fathers’ bodies, as was the custom among Greeks. The Callatiae were horrified at the suggestion. Herodotus sees this story as vindicating the poet Pindar’s dictum that “custom is lord of all”; people’s beliefs and practices are shaped by custom, and they typically assume that their own ways are the best."” [3] I believe that this illustrates my point perfectly. I'll leave you with a quote from Nietzsche: “ There are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena.” -Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil, 108). [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...;[2] http://www.talkorigins.org... [3] http://www.iep.utm.edu...;