DCL: Cultural Relativism

Thank you Bsh. Overview Objections Con states that ethical theories aren’t cultures. This is irrelevant since I was referring to point 2 which refers to human moral codes [2]. A moral code is a synonym for an ethical theory. The definition of a moral code is: A written, formal, and consistent set of moral rules, accepted by a person or by a group of people [1]. Both ethical nihilism and anarchism coincide with the definition of a moral code so con’s objection is invalid. Con assumes that I was referring to these beliefs (ethical nihilism and anarchism) as cultures and uses this as his basis of rebuttal here. My point still stands on the basis that the definition refers to the uniting of “moral codes” not cultures. If you buy the fact that these beliefs are moral codes then you ought to presume Pro. Different Moral Codes and Precepts Whilst I did say that it is under con’s BOP to affirm the existence of universal and objective truths uniting all moral codes, I’ve affirmed this point. I’ve affirmed this point through two key arguments: A - If we have no evidence to assume that universal, objective truths uniting all moral codes exists then we shouldn’t assume that it exists. Take the Russell's teapot analogy to explain my point in a better way: If I asserted that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in Space between Earth and Mars should we believe it? The object is too small to find so the notion cannot be proven or disproven completely. But what the Russell’s teapot analogy teaches us is that the BOP is on the affirmer of a statement. Just because we cannot disprove something, does not mean that this exists or we should assume that it exists (especially if there is no more evidence in support of its existence as there is against it) [3]. B - I contradicted the entire premise that there exist universal truths, precepts, etc. uniting all moral codes with examples of nihilists; moral absolutists and theists; atheists. Moral Codes Con makes the same error as he makes in the objection. He states that the debate isn’t about ethical theories and that it’s really about cultural moral codes. The premise that I am attacking doesn’t say cultures. It doesn’t say cultural moral codes. It says “all such codes” ( it follows on from P1 which refers to human cultures having different moral codes). Con refers to me talking about what people believe in, not cultures, and he uses this to attack these points and states that this is a debate on cultural relativism (CR) - not individual relativism. If we look at the definition of CR once more we can see that P1 states that different human cultures have different moral codes. And that P2 states that there aren’t any universal precepts, truths, objective standards, etc. that unite these moral codes. As we can logically conclude from these two premises, we are not talking about the cultures - we are talking about the moral codes from these human cultures. Look back at the definition of moral code(s) above and the one from Google below: A written, formal, and consistent set of rules prescribing righteous behavior, accepted by a person or by a group of people.[4] Both of these sources state that they need to be accepted by a person or a group of people. Meaning that con’s objections regarding me talking about what people believe as opposed to cultures is invalid due to the debate definitions that both of us have accepted upon instigation and acceptance of the debate. Con states that no culture solely belongs to one ethical theory. He (once again) forgets that we are talking about premise 2 of the definition of the CR definition. We are talking about moral codes within human cultures. This means that we are still talking about the moral codes - not the cultures themselves. So when comparing the actual moral codes (which we should be doing since we’re talking about whether or not there exist universal truths that unite them all), we shouldn’t be talking about whether different cultures are only partly members of that since we are talking about the moral codes (I cannot stress this point enough). Con asserts that all cultures by necessity share moral beliefs so that they can be compared. You cannot always compare cultures and moral codes. Though you can always contrast them (since if they had nothing different about each other then they’d be the same culture / moral code). Atheist cultures and theistic cultures have no similarities (since atheists don’t believe in God and theists believe in God) - and yes atheistic culture and theistic culture are both cultures as well as beliefs [5]. Society's Right Con states that I am conceding point 2 of CR when I state that everybody has the universal right to the freedom of speech. When I state this, I say it because it is part of the UDHR (as is evidenced by my direct citation to the website and the articles). Whilst it is commonly believed that everybody has these universal rights in the Western world this belief isn’t universal (and it isn’t applied in the world universally - it is a subjective belief that is accepted by the majority of the Western world). Con’s assumption that this is a concession of point 2 of CR is a jump to conclusions. Take note of the logical fallacy in a syllogism of his argument: P1: The UDHR states that everybody has universal human rights. P2: The UDHR is accepted by the Western world. P3: I correctly stated that the UDHR states that we have these rights. C1: I’ve conceded that there exist universal truths that unite all moral codes. The problem here is that I never stated that I personally agreed that the UDHR, I said that it exists and it is accepted by the Western world. Take another analogy, if somebody tells me to steal something and I respond by saying that stealing is illegal, does this mean that I am against stealing? I might agree with it, I might not - if somebody were to say that I believed that theft should be illegal based on this analogy alone, they would be jumping to conclusions because all I did was acknowledge that it is the law. The same applies to the UDHR problem that Bsh claims to exist (NOTE: I do not believe in theft - this was purely an analogy). Con then refers to the consequences of backing from my original claim. Just to make this clear, I am NOT backing down on my syllogism from my previous round. I am clarifying with the above. Just as I can say that everybody in the UK aren’t allowed to steal according to the law. I can also say that everybody has the right to believe what they like according to the UDHR. Neither of these claims state or imply that I believe that stealing or believing what you want are right or wrong according to me, since I say: “according to the law” and “according to the UDHR”. Con complains about the fact that I refer to “everybody” since this refers to the plural of individuals and he claims that I need to affirm these points for societies. A - If we look at the definition of “culture” we can see that cultures aren’t only societies - they can be single people). B - “Everybody” refers to multiple people who can make up societies. Next con misses out key parts of my case. He states that I use the fact that different people believe different things in order to negate the existence of objective morality. This isn’t true. I did use this as a mitigation since if most people do not believe in the same thing then there is no “clear” objective moral code. The fact that normative ethical beliefs are subjective is usually considered to be a truism. This is because morality is evolutionary (and evolution is a truism) and the general human sense of morality has been evolving for survival purposes [6]. This means that there is no objective or absolute morality since our sense of morality is constantly evolving and changing in order for us to best adapt and survive in our conditions (which is a great demonstration of mental / psychological evolution as opposed to the general models of evolution being physical). Con goes on to make a long quote attempting to refute the mitigation when he could have requested for me to affirm P1 (I did say that I could clarify). I stated that it was a truism because I thought that he’d agree (most people do). Eskimos I assumed that he would be trying to negate CR. His impacts, as he describes in this round, are irrelevant impacts. In agree with (1) - though I don’t believe that it is always the case - only sometimes. (2) - I agree. (3) - regards the next contention. (1) and (2) are irrelevant to negating my case. (3) will be responded to in the next contention. Con needs to show how there exist universal truths that unite the two cultures. The problem is that neither the definition of atheist or theist require one to accept that 1+1 = 2. So that doesn’t necessarily mean that all atheists or all theists believe in these truths by definition. For example, a theist can still believe in the simulation hypothesis and reject the laws of logic - including 1+1 = 2. Moral logic isn’t universal. Going back to ethical nihilists - they do not believe in any sort of morality objective or subjective existing. Drive to survive In nihilistic societies murder is allowed - nothing is right or wrong. The reason that these cultures / societies / moral codes can feasibly exist is because that they exist within countries that have laws against murder. So whilst the society has no problem with murder, the countries that they exist in usually do. Common Biology and Experiences Con’s (1) is false. I said: “the vast majority of humans” not all, “have mirror neurons”. So these experiences aren’t universal. There are problems with the mirror neuron in humans - notably in autism [7]. Point (2) is contingent on (1) so there is no need to provide further rebuttal. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro! Sources [1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bit.ly... [3] http://bit.ly... [4] http://bit.ly... [5] http://bit.ly... [6] http://bit.ly... [7] http://bit.ly...