DCL: Cultural Relativism

Thanks for the debate, Pro. I. OverviewPoint 1 says: "Different human cultures have different moral codes. " The definition doesn't refer to any "human moral codes" as Pro erroneously thinks it does. It refers to moral codes that have been adopted by cultures. Therefore, Pro needed to do one of two things to show that his ethical theories were adopted by human cultures. Either he needed to show that these theories were a culture, or he needed to give examples of cultures that used them exclusively. Pro did neither of these things. Pro dropped that ethical theories are not the same thing as cultures, and Pro gives no example of a specific culture which exclusively (or even partially) uses any of these theories he cites. Pro also drops my analysis that society's are not "morally monochromatic. " The impact of Pro's failures in these regards is simple: ethical theories are not topical to this debate (they are not cultures nor have they been adopted by cultures). Talk of ethical theories is simply a redherring that should be entirely disregarded. II. Pro's CaseA&B. Difference, Precepts, and CodesOn the "Moral Codes" argument, Pro is still conflating ethical theories with culture and cultural norms. "All such codes" refers to the moral codes of human cultures cited in point 1. Thus, the overview can still be cross-applied. As I explained earlier, this debate is about moral systems adopted by a culture, not moral systems adopted by an individual. Point 1 of the definition of cultural relativism (CR) proves this. I may be a part of the American culture, but that does not mean that I agree with all of the moral norms our culture has adopted. An individual's moral beliefs are not the same as a culture's moral beliefs; it is Pro's job to affirm differences on the culture, not individual level. Thus, individual subjectivism is also a redherring, and not a source of positive offense for Pro. Pro incorrectly assumes that Point 2 of the definition of CR means we are talking about moral codes within human cultures. If you buy this interpretation, this debate would be about individual subjectivism (the idea that each individual has a different moral code) because all of these codes are "moral codes within human cultures. " That is a highly skewed an unreasonable reading of the set-up of this debate. Judges should prefer the most common-sense, widely accepted reading of the definitions. CR has always and widely referred to variations in cultural norms, and beliefs held on the cultural, not individual level. I highly doubt that anyone reading this debate thought (or thinks) that CR means individual subjectivism, which underscores how desperately Pro is contorting the resolution. The fact that experts like James Rachels [1] talk about CR as differences in societies' moral standards is further evidence that we are talking about societies' moral codes, not about all codes that exists within those societies. Finally, point 3 of the definition shows that we are talking about comparing one society's moral code (notice that it is a society's "moral code" not "moral codes"), against another society's moral code, indicating that we are talking about the one, overarching moral code in use by the society, and not all the various theories or individual beliefs that may be bouncing around inside that society. Point one of the definition of CR means that different cultures have different moral codes. The American culture has its moral code, Eskimo culture has its moral code, etc. Point two of the definition asks whether these moral codes--which have been adopted by cultures--have any shared precepts. So, yes, we are talking about moral codes, but we are only talking about those moral codes which have been adopted by cultures and societies; anarchism and ethical nihilism have never been adopted by any society (Pro has not proven that they have been), and so even if they are "moral codes" they are not topical to this debate. Firstly, atheism and theism are not moral beliefs. I need to show that cultures have similar moral beliefs, which is different from similar theological beliefs. Secondly, saying that atheists and theists agree on nothing because they disagree on god is also absurd--disagreement on one issue does not preclude disagreement on all issues. Thirdly, atheists and theists are not organized into discrete societies and cultures anyway; they exist inside many different cultures and societies. It is not a reasonable interpretation of the definition of culture to call atheists and theists "cultures. " Both the experts (Rachels) and point 3 of the definition of CR tell us that we're talking about societies's and their overarching moral codes. Fourthly, even if they were a culture, they would still, by necessity, have to share some moral rules as an extension of the "drive to survive. "C. Society's RightThere are 2 reasons Pro's syllogisms fail (legal =/= moral & Rachels). If Pro is relying on the legal nature of the UDHR, he's conflating morality with legality; these concepts are not the same. This is a debate about morality, so even if Pro can demonstrate that everyone has a legal right to freedom of belief, he has not demonstrated a moral right to freedom of belief. Pro cannot use a legal reality to prove that "if X is right according to a society's code, then it is indeed right and moral. .. at least within that society. " Legality realities do not prove moral truths. The only way Pro's syllogism works is if he argues for a moral right for everyone to believe what they want to believe; if he does that, he concedes to a universe moral truth and loses the debate. Either way, his arguments fail. By saying that not every cultures accepts the UDHR on a moral level, Pro invalidates his own second premise, because then not everyone has a recognized moral right to believe what they want to believe. This causes his syllogism to collapse, because he cannot show that anyone has a right to believe anything. Even legally, not all countries have ratified the UDHR, so it cannot be said to apply to everyone. [10]Next, Pro talks about what most people believe. That is an ad populum argument, and fallacious. On the issue of the non-sequitur itself, Pro says that his argument was just mitigation. But, his argument that normative ethical beliefs were subjective because different people believe different things were the underpinning factor of his two syllogisms. If that argument of his is false, then his syllogism's conclusions cannot follow from their premises, and two of Pro's major arguments collapse entirely. Pro wasn't just using this as mitigation, he was basing his entire last two contentions on this. His evolution argument does not rebut Rachels. Because even if our beliefs change, that doesn't mean that morality changes. Rachel's whole argument was that moral beliefs are not the same as morality. If my belief that the Earth is flat changes to a belief that the Earth is conical, that does mean that the objective truth that the Earth is spherical has been altered. Therefore, the Rachels argument stands, as does the impact flowing from it: Pro's conclusions do not flow from his premises, so he has not substantiated any of the arguments which rely on the syllogisms as evidence. Pro has not proven either of his last two contentions to be likely correct. The evolution argument is also fallacious in that some beliefs will never change. It will never be socially useful for human cultures and societies to change norms against wanton murder and lying, because these would spell the end of people's ability to cooperate effectively, and would thus destroy society and culture. Moreover, Pro source 6 is a blog that, as far as I can tell, sites literally no scientific data to substantiate its claims about moral evolution. III. My CaseA. Drive to SurviveThere is no such thing as a nihilist society. A society is defined as: "people in general thought of as living together in organized communities with shared laws, traditions, and values. " [9] There may be individual nihilists, but there is no organized community of nihilists with shared laws, traditions, and (not or) values (the same is true of atheists/theists). Again, ethical theories =/= cultures. This counterexample fails. Pro offers no (topical) reason to believe why a society with no norms against murder could feasibly exist, while I have provided ample logic as to how such norms are not only good for society, but are a necessary prerequisite to a society's existence. Nihilists could not organize into a society, per the definition, because without norms against murder, they would either die out or be forced to adopt such norms, thus creating a moral rule. B. Common BiologyEven if only the vast majority of humans have mirror neurons or share experiences, that is sufficient to develop shared moral values, because society's moral codes are blendings of the views of people within them (as I said in the R3 Overview). Since the vast majority of the collective share these commonalities, societies would invariably lite on shared norms and values. IV. ConclusionPer my dropped R2 topic analysis, Pro must show that CR is likely correct (not just plausibly correct) and must affirm all 4 elements of CR to win; I can win by negating just one of CR's 4 elements. Pro fails to meet his BOP because (a) he was confused on what this debate was about, resulting in a lot of non-topical arguments/examples which left his arguments unsupported, and (b) Pro's syllogisms have been thoroughly rebutted, leaving him with no evidence to support that elements 3 and 4 of cultural relativism are likely correct. He hasn't affirmed all elements of CR. I have met my BOP by showing that the drive to survive is going to generate universal moral precepts (like norms against murder), which negates element 2. V. Sources10 - . http://tinyurl.com...Thank you.