Morality: Is it Objective or Relative

"David Hume's Five-Point Approach to Ethics"David Hume's Five-Point Approach to Ethics is addressed in Point #3 of Round 2 by me. The human being defines as he wishes. He defines the language he speaks, the words he associates with other words, and he decides the context of how words should be used. The human being defines laws as he wishes. David Hume is another human being so he does not assert himself above the rest. Hume too, falls into the category of defining the world as he sees it. "The argument that Nietzsche uses to compare Master Morality vs. Slave Morality isn’t really relevant to the debate. For this type of argument is for determining the “Value” of an individual, but not so much if morality is objective or relative. "It is relevant because human beings are defining what is "right" and what is "wrong" which are the core tenants that makeup morality. Nietzsche pointed out how the reasoning behind both moralities differed in what they perceived what was "right" or "wrong. ""Master morality is a "yea-saying" attitude where "good" and "bad" are equivalent to "noble" and "despicable" respectively. The master creates value. Slave morality is a "nay-saying" attitude or herd morality which holds to the standard of that which is useful or beneficial to the weak or powerless. The virtues are sympathy, kindness, and humility. Strong and independent individuals are evil. "This is a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of Nietzsche's writings. This can be explained another time since characters are limited in this debate. "Either way, this argument that Nietzsche is using is asserting a standard based upon observation and moral perception. If Nietzsche assertion of Moral nihilism is true, then the words “good and “Evil wouldn’t exist"The words "good" and "evil" did not always exist. The English language only dates back to the 5th century. So those terms could not of existed previously. "Rebuttal: I believe my opponent has created a false dilemma here. Imagine I said, “Let’s define truth my way”. How would we know if truth exists? How would we even operate or function in a society with “what if’s? ” "I offered no false dilemma as my opponent is attempting to claim. Truth is relative. I offered two definitions of how the word truth is defined below[1]. According to both definitions of what truth is it must be relative. The first definition attributes the word "sincerity" but that is a description solely up to one's perception. The second definition refers to the alleged "facts" but the facts are limited to the information we have acquired. Therefore it may or may not be a fact that we possess. Therefore, the truth must be relative since we are limited. My opponent asks a philosophical question, "How would we even operate or function in a society with “what if’s? ”" I simply retort, human beings don't need to possess knowledge of the past nor the future to survive in the present. That is why information can be found, manipulated, restored, cast aside, and recovered purely at one's wishes. A "what if" question is purely a philosophical question not a question of survival. [1]Truth: "1b. sincerity in action, character, and utterance" "2. the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts""The problem is, that is not the way morality is. For we realize that a standard exists and we have an obligation amongst one another to do something. We realize actions are wrong or right through personal experience and our moral perceptions. ""We realize that a standard exists? " My opponent has attempted to paint the world with his moral brush in one stroke or less. Shall I remind my opponent what happens in Saudi Arabia when someone is found guilty of adultery? They are put to death[2]. In the United States on the other hand nothing of significance happens except a divorce. If we have the moral standard, wouldn't there have been a similar reaction? Yes, there would of been but it did not happen because we have different moral standards. My opponent goes on to say, "We have an obligation amongst one another to do something. " The evidence says other wise. Shall we look into the Milgram experiment where people willingly shock someone to death because they are ordered to[3]? If that experiment is not enough, how about the Holocaust perpetuated by the Nazis? Where the German citizens willingly turned their neighbors into the Gestapo[4]. The moral standard my opponent claims, does not exist. [2]. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[3]http://psychology.about.com...[4]http://www.schechter.edu... "This re-defining of morality, is a clear indicator to avoid the all-too-real reality of objective moral values and duties. "There is no re-defining of morality because human beings define it as they see fit. Let us ask the people who would be considered "evil": the Adolph Hitlers, the Dong Zhuos, the Vlad the Impalers, the Torquemadas, and the KKKs of the world. If morality is objective they would not of been capable of committing atrocities or been able to get away with them. The atrocities in some instances were even celebrated by the public at large. That only further diminishes the claim that morality is objective. "P1. Moral relativists claim that there are no absolute moral standards. P2. The claim "All moral standards are relative" proposes an absolute moral standard. P3. To propose there are no absolute moral standards using an absolute moral standard is illogical. C. Therefore, the relativist's claim "All moral standards are relative" is illogical. "My opponent here has attempted to blatantly distort my argumentation and misassociate it as well. Don't be deceived. I never once said there was a standard of morality. I only said and implied that morality is defined by the will of human beings. No where did I offer any mention of any standards. I don't believe there are any standards if it is defined according to the will of individuals. "It is very much obvious that Morality is “objective” than “relative” since we experience it through our moral perceptions. "My opponent has revisited the term moral perception multiple times throughout this debate. So let us examine it since Pro failed to define it or offer a definition. Moral:"of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior ". http://www.merriam-webster.com...Perceive: "to notice or become aware of". http://www.merriam-webster.com...As we see, the definition of "moral" is adjective which is applied as the user of the term wishes. The term, "perceive" refers to a capacity of understanding. Therefore, moral perceptions must be relative because it is exclusively up to the individual. "Moral relativism is impossible to hold consistently in reality, for it is self-defeating, inconsistent, and untenable. "Moral relativism is more likely because I have provided several pieces of evidence showing morality is inconsistent. Therefore, objective morality is nonexistent if we are capable of doing things some would considered "wrong" or "immoral. " Moral relativism has nothing to do with consistency or standards. It is acknowledgement that human beings apply morals as they see fit. It would be wise for us to admit this fact since morality is dependent upon our perceptions. Let's sum up the points of the debate:1. The Origin of MoralityI will concede this point because morality could of predated the points Nietzsche observed.2. There are different forms of morality(Master Morality v. Slave Morality)This point stands as is. My opponent failed to refute it.3. The human being is a definer who defines even when he does not know it. He will thus define subconsciously. This point stands as is. My opponent failed to refute it or even address it for that matter. 4. Pro has Misrepresented Nietzsche. I pointed this out earlier this round. My opponent has no understanding of "Master" or "Slave" Moralities.5. Pro has offered a number of Presuppositions without evidence. The most recurring example of a presupposition without evidence was my opponent's use of the term "moral perception. " There was no evidence even given to show such a concept exists biologically or physically.6. Pro has Misrepresented My Argumentation to suit his Own Arguments. I pointed this out earlier this round with how my opponent clamored about "standards. " I explicitly stated in Round 2, that human beings defined the world as they see fit. I don't subscribe to any standard as my opponent has associated my argumentation with.