There is no universal moral standard.

Welcome to the site. You have selected an excellent topic, and I look forward to a good debate. Pro's opening argument does not define "moral standard" precisely, but I think it is best to proceed with a general understanding until a semantic issue arises. Pro is contending that morality is a strictly a construction of society. Pro says, "all moral conceptions are relative, hence established by cultural/geographical/etc. schema, rather than via a priori knowledge." If Pro is correct then, for example, there is no sound basis for asserting universal human rights, because enforcing rights embodies moral judgments from outside a society and, according to Pro, morality is merely an artifact of society. My position in this debate is that there is a transcendental morality (and hence universal human rights), and that absolute morality is derived from the nature of man. This is essentially the position of Jefferson and Madison. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson asserted "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." http://www.ushistory.org... The rights drive from a Creator, but Jefferson, being a Deist, did not believe in any form of divine revelation. Without revelation, how can one know what the particulars of universal morality are? Jefferson said they are "self-evident." Madison provided a similar rationale for the Constitution. He said it was derived strictly from "natural law," i.e., observation of the nature of man. http://www.answers.com... In Pro's formulation, I am claiming it is biologically based. The derivation of morality from the nature of man works as well for atheists as Deists. Consider for a moment the absolute morality of a different species, the praying mantis. In that species, the female characteristically eats her mate. This supposedly has something to do with recycling protein for the benefit of the soon-to-be-hatched offspring. We'll suppose that's true. If an unusually intelligent praying mantis were to write down a universal code of morality for the species, then it would be logical to consider a failure to consume the mate to be a form of child neglect. The point is: The nature of the species dictates the morality. Bears and tigers are not social animals. Tribal (herd) behavior obligations have no role for bears and tigers. Herd behavior is important for caribou. A responsible caribou does not strike out on his own. Humans are also creatures of instinct. There are instincts to protect the self, the family, and the tribe ("society"). For example, the individual wants to be free, wants to care for his children, and wants to be a part of a tribe that affords social conventions. There are no human societies that eat their young; there are species of fish that do. Humans universally avoid pain, want sex, want freedom, and want security. From this nature derives the universal rights to pursue these objectives. Societies that deny them are in those respects immoral. Animals do not have enough intelligence to worry about what they should be doing. Humans have instincts to serve self, family, and tribe and those instincts can conflict. this should not be interpreted as meaning that there are no moral absolutes. What it means is that even moral absolutes can clash. For example, consider "Free speech does not include the right to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." Morality demands that the individual be allowed to speak. Morality also demands that individuals not act to injure others in their society. Most of the time these two moral principles do not conflict, but in the crowded theater they do. Nonetheless, there are absolute rights to freedom and to avoid pain. Pro says, "After all, societies routinely incorporate what some of us would call "morally objectionable" actions into their daily lives, and they still exist and thrive." Pro is required to avoid saying anything IS "morally objectionable" so instead says "what some of us call morally objectionable." However, in what follows it is clear that Pro is in fact asserting an absolute moral standard. If Pro did not believe that there was any morality aside from that which societies have dreamed up, there would be no moral grounds for criticizing tribes that war endlessly or societies that happen to eat their child or anything else that a society might do. A moral relativist would have to take a blasï¿½ attitude of "Isn't it interesting how different societies do different things." ... and leave it at that. That's not the sense of what Pro is saying. Pro is saying that what those people were doing is wrong, and evolution has not made them stop it. Endless pointless warring is wrong, although I don't know for sure that in the case that Pro cites the warring was pointless. I'll assume it was. It's true that evolution didn't stop it. The explanation, however, is not that there are no moral instincts. There is a moral instinct to serve the tribe, and that has not been properly weighed against the instinct to protect the self, another valid instinct. Evolution only has to work well enough to provide positive survival rates. Humans have not fully evolved to walking upright, so half the world has back problems. Yet we do well enough to survive, and that's all that counts. The sub-Saharan folks very like could not survive without a very strong instinct to support a tribe. That translates properly to a moral obligation to support their society. That moral obligation is far more important for survival than the error of continual warring. In New Guinea, perpetually warring tribes have developed traditions that limit the frequency and severity of attacks. The warring deepens the tribal bond, but it is moderated to the point of not posing a threat to survival. Pro continually confuses "murder" with "warring." Murder is "unlawful killing of another human being with ... malice" http://en.wikipedia.org.... Killing in self-defense is not murder. Warring is legal and is for the perceived benefit of the society, either for offense or defense. Execution is killing an individual for the perceived benefit of the society. Pro wrongly equates all these things. It is moral to kill someone to protect your children, it is immoral to kill someone to steal their wallet. Pro argues, "In fact, it could be said that attempting to promote, or especially enforce, a universal moral code actually leads to more violations of human rights and human dignity than leaving a culture to its own devices." In making that argument, Pro is implying that there are universal human rights and that she knows what they are. A true moral relativist could only say, "Some societies have moral codes that involve imposing certain rules on others. There is no way to say whether that is right or wrong, it's just what they do." When Pro asserts that a universal code may be worse than no code, she is admitting that there is a biological basis that defines human rights. That is the only way she could know what is worse. What Pro is really asserting is that formulating and imposing an errant code can be worse than not attempting to formulate a code. that is true. Native peoples may have perfectly reasonable codes of morality, even though they haven't intellectualized them. The Founders were right, there are moral absolutes derived from the nature of mankind. You cannot rightly eat your children, period. All men are created equal and have rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Genocide is wrong. The problem arrives with asserting too much as being absolute. We can recognize genocide as absolutely wrong while arguing whether or not a criminal death penalty is wrong. Arguable cases do not invalidate clear cases. The resolution is negated.