The subject of morality is subjective to society

Thanks everyone this is a topic I'm delighted to debate about. For my purpose of the debate, I will be arguing that morality is objective and is not unique to each society. What does this mean? This means that morality is a set of principles or truth claims regarding the actions of an individual. Morality is that by which we can recognize and judge whether or not what a person has done is right or wrong. How is this different from subjective morality? When we consider that morality is objective, we recognize a standard. What is considered by my opponent as differences in moralities is actually differences in understanding and lacking in understanding of this single, common objective set of principles. So when we say that our government (as Schopenhaur does) feels it has the best moral principles, what we are actually saying is that we have the best understanding of moral principles, not the moral principles in and of themselves. This will be further clarified in the debate. And so, introductions aside let's get to the debate. I will first examine my opponents definition,then I will make my case in the form of 2 arguments, and then I will rebut my opponents statements. =========== DEFINITIONS =========== One problem I have with my opponents definition is that they are taken from an arbitrary source likedictionary. com. The very essence of this debate is to define what morality is, and it is extremely crude and against the spirit of the debate to just spit out a layman and preconceived notion for the purposes of the argument. There are also some fallacies in the definitions themselves. Dictionary. com's definition for morality is circular : morality is the "moral quality or character" - so we define morality in terms of morality. Great! The same with ethics, "The ethics of a culture. " For one, morality and ethics are not the same thing. Morality is from the Greek and Ethics is from the Latin. They are both referring to the same thing, the right and wrong acts of the individual. What we are asking in this debate is whether the individual/society makes up what's right and wrong or that they don't make it up but instead recognize it as an intrinsic part of reality that they recognize and that by which they judge whether or not something is right or wrong. ARGUMENTS 1) The Consequences of Moral Relativism Society cannot exist built upon relativism, there must be some form of absolute foundation for the subjective value of moral relativism. Certain immoral acts feel good on the surface but they have bad consequences. The classic example is that, although the majority of individuals in WW2 Germany valued anti-semitism, it had horrific consequences both on their society and the rest of the world. Where do we draw the line between a majority that values the good? And if and when we do, how can we ensure that it's even good unless there is some certain standard by which we recognize the good rather than some subjective meaning that we make up for ourselves. So I say there must be some objective moral value that we hold as a foundation for relativism (however that's a contradiction and ultimately defeats the case on PRO's side). I anticipate and hope however, that my opponent will bring up some values for relativism. 2) Why Do We React in the Face of Immorality? I'd like to also point to some realism within society. I think it's pretty clear to say that there is an automatic reaction to immorality with a proposed objective moral action. Try punching a relativist and say you believe punching is moral. Sure, the relativist can punch you back but notice that he does so out of spite because fundamentally some immorality has been committed and he has reason for revenge. The skeptic can say this is all spontaneous but that's not in the spirit of the debate (and further defeats the resolution because if it's spontaneous then it's not subjective at all but completely random). However going back to the original point, when we are faced with an immoral action, especially if it's unrecognized within society, there is an inherent capacity for reason within ourselves to fight about what's truly right & wrong. To pursue this is to look for a proper recognition of right and wrong rather than what taking what society or some individual has come up with themselves. ========= REBUTTALS ========= My opponent has said a lot of things but I will take the time now to address them in full. Let's begin. 1) "The point is, no matter how much we think the way we do things is right, another country, full of different separate societies, believe the way they do thinks is right as well. That doesn't mean either side is wrong, just that both sides are right according to different perspectives. " 2) " It is impossible to say that that something is right and wrong. Every human being has what I like to call, beleifs. Beliefs that determine the "why" for reasons we do things. .. Most germans believed that by exterminating jewish people, they were ridding the world of infestation and creating good. And while there is an outbreak of opinion in the moral factor leaning towards that being "wrong", we cannot forget that their society deemed what they were doing as morally "right". " Well, I was going to treat both his points in two but they honestly stem from one fundamental point which isn't really a point at all. My opponent really has just made a bunch of assertions with no really argumentation to support these. I acknowledge the fact that we see Germans exterminating Jews and that they believed that this was the right thing to do - but was their belief TRUE? Can their belief be recognized as reasonable, rational and moral behaviour? We've recognized pretty clearly after the fact that this is not the case. You can point to some people and say that oh, they say that the holocaust was wrong but they are hypocrites because they do X - yet this doesn't discredit the fact that the holocaust was wrong, and by the virtue of the fact that you name them as hypocrites you are inherently saying that what they are doing is immoral and therefore appealing to an objective standard. Ultimately, my opponent can't recognize the difference between believing something is true and then recognizing whether it's true or not. The very purpose of this debate is to do just that, and hence why we argue and appeal to our capacity for reason in order to understand who is right or wrong. Likewise we do in justice and in our own moral pursuits - to recognize if something was moral or immoral, good or evil, right or wrong. To give you an example - let's say two individuals were looking at a wine glass. One person says it looks purple, the other says it looks red. By my opponents standard, just because the two individuals believe in the perception that they experience, their individual beliefs are subjective and ultimately perception is subjective. However, we can appeal to reason and say, oh well perhaps the lighting is off, or their positioning in the objective space they are in is affecting the colour that they are experiencing - when we factor in these objective variables we make an objective conclusion and determine what belief was ultimately right or wrong. Likewise we do with morality. ======= SUMMARY ======= For this round, I've made two arguments for moral absolutism, that morals aren't subjective things that we believe in but rather objective truth principles by which we judge and recognize an action to be moral or immoral. I've rebutted my opponents assertions. At this point in the debate, it is very reasonable to conclude that morality is objective rather than subjective.