DCL: Cultural Relativism

In my case I will walk through the 4 points in which Bsh has used to defined cultural relativism in R1 and will show them to be true in order to meet my burden. 1 - Different human cultures have different moral codes. This point is a truism. Various cultures have different approaches to what is moral. Examples include: intellectualists (who believe that moral actions are ones that foster and promote knowledge); welfarists (who believe that moral actions are ones that foster and promote economic/general welfare) and egoists (who believe that moral actions are those that are done in the best interest of oneself) [1]. Since all of these are “human cultures” and each have different “moral codes”, point 1 is affirmed. 2 - There exist no universal precepts, truths, or beliefs, and/or no objective standards that unite all such codes or allow us to judge one against the other This is under my opponent’s burden to affirm (if he chooses to do so). I argue that there is no demonstration of any objective standard because if there was a clear objective standard then everybody would be following it. The only logical way in which my opponent can affirm a universal objective precept, truth, belief and/or objective standard that unites different moral codes would be for him to affirm an unclear truth that the vast majority of people are not aware of (since if they did then there wouldn’t be such great difference in the opinions of others). Due to there being no reason for me to assume that there exists a “universal precept” that “allow[s] us to judge one against the other”, I agree with point 2 and judges ought to buy this argument. 3 - The moral code of our own society is not inherently better than any other; all codes share equal validity Due to how subjective all of these normative ethical theories are there is no way to classify any one theory as “inherently better” than any other. This is also a point that my opponent must affirm in order for me to negate it. The fact that different people believe different normative ethical theories shows that the belief is based on personal opinion (ie. the paraphrased definition of subjective) [2]. Take the following syllogism: P1: Different people believe different normative ethical theories. C1: Belief in different views on morality is based on personal opinions/beliefs - so it is subjective. P2: Inherently and objectively are interchangeable in the context of point 3. P3: Objective and subjective are antonyms. C2: Since C1 establishes that different views on morality are subjective and subjective is the equivalent of saying not objectively/inherently (see: P3), point 3 can be affirmed. I have justified the premises that I believe that my opponent will object to in the paragraph above the syllogism. If any of the other premises/conclusions are challenged then I will be happy to attempt to affirm them later on in the debate (though the unexplained premises are ones that I believe my opponent should/will accept). 4 - The moral code of any given society determines what is right and wrong within that society; if X is right according to a society's code, then it is indeed right and moral...at least within that society This point is fairly self explanatory. In a society of intellectualists it would be preposterous for all of them to go against their core beliefs and follow the system of something that none of them believe themselves. I will form another syllogism in order to attempt to affirm this point: P1: All normative ethical beliefs are subjective. P2: Everybody has the right to believe what they want (articles 1, 18 and 19). C1: A society that believes X is right / wrong is free to believe this. C2: If a society believes that something is right/wrong then that is right/wrong within that society. C3: If a society believes in a moral principle then it is logical for them to apply the principle that they believe in to their everyday lives to determine what is right and wrong (at least to them and their society). P1 is a truism. P2 is justified by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which is self-explanatorily Universal in its application [3]. P2 solely justifies C1. C2 is a truism (with exceptions to situations where people are being deprived of their basic and universal human rights. C3 is also a truism since it wouldn’t make sense for somebody that believed in one thing to then apply a principle that he didn’t believe in to his life - that would be illogical. Conclusion I have gone through all of the necessary 4 points that my opponent has used to define cultural relativism and shown how they are valid. Those that I have not addressed in a lot of detail are the points that my opponent needs to affirm. Apologies for the brief argument, I’ve just come back from Spain and have loads to do in terms of unpacking and getting ready for school too - I’ll try to make any clarifications necessary as the debate progresses. The resolution is affirmed. Sources [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://dictionary.cambridge.org... [3] http://www.un.org...