args

There is no universal moral standard.

Organized via negation post. I would like to begin by providing an overview that will become an important issue, and I'm sure a repeated one. The negation continually assumes that I must be blas�, as it were, about morality, that I must affirm by saying we have no morality that can be counted on. This isn't inherent in affirming my position, which is rightly characterized by my opponent in his first paragraph, which is that I am attempting to advocate a morality that is created by cultural and environmental factors. If human beings find themselves in similar situations (such as the countries that have joined the UN), then they can easily rationalize their way to a moral rule. However, that doesn't prove that this agreed upon rule was derived of an innate property in humanity. What I claim is that the moral standard upon which I am using to judge others is not one that all will agree with innately. It is perfectly acceptable for the UN to have a declaration of human rights, and by a majority of countries to act on such a declaration. However, I would object to anyone who tried to convince me that this declaration is anything more than a collection of countries that, by like circumstances, have come to agree upon a moral standard that some countries still don't share. On the issue of a universal set of human rights: the two are not mutually exclusive. The declaration of human rights, drafted and ratified by the United Nations, is merely a product of a majority vote of the United Nations. Note that the dissenters and those who violate these rights, not a mere rarity, but a significant number of nations around the world, clearly prove that not all cultures value these rights. Only the countries that are members of the United Nations agree that these are universal, which doesn't actually empirically prove them universal. The concepts of evolution negate a morality that is biologically universal. Murder is a prime example. Though the negation claims to establish that there are undeniable human rights that all humans are aware of, how can it be proven empirically when humans still kill each other, no matter their ideologies? Killing is even built into the laws of nations of all varieties, including the United States, but not other nations, showing a fundamentally different view on the right to life. It is only absolute in some societies. Mantises are not moral beings. They don't use reason because they don't have the evolutionary brain function to put the pen to paper, much less think about the concepts of morality and rationalize them. Because humans have this capacity, we have the infinite potential to individually determine moral standards. This is what makes moral standards different from community to community- though we all have biological urges, we have a far more keen ability to redirect our actions or partially/completely ignore those urges. We can't ignore the urge to breathe most of the time, but we can ignore the urge to not kill other people. Again, you can't compare the human animal to any other, save some species of primates, due to their biological inability to move beyond instinct. Caribou do what they are programmed to do genetically or they die off due to evolutionary constraints. Humans, on the other hand, with their superior ability to adapt environments to their own survival and to rationalize and decision-make will always have more freedom of action than a caribou. We do have a genetic subconscious that encourages species survival. That is a scientifically sound argument. However, as we have found empirically, the more advanced human societies become, the more the "universality" of morality slips away. We are able to cognitively escape previous resource-based restraints. Primitive or ancient societies could not escape those restraints as of the time. As human societies advanced, the illusion of uniform morality dissolved because we were no longer living in the same environments. Hence, even ancient societies didn't have universal morality, just the illusion of it because they all lived under the same basic constraints. As we modified the environment, our morality changed, as well. The things you describe are a natural want of any animal, but the application of those instincts is vastly different, and THAT is morality. It isn't a moral standard to be secure. It is a moral standard to dictate what secure means. Security for me is inherently not the same as security for you. Same thing goes with freedom. What I consider a wise application of freedom may be far more liberal or conservative than the next person. And freedom differs significantly from country to country. Take gun control. Canadians don't feel oppressed because they have no access to fire power. However, a significant sect of the US population objects strenuously to the loss of guns as a matter of security and personal liberty. How do you account for this difference? Of "fire in a crowded theater": This example is inherently legal system-specific. In fact, this came (give or take) directly from Schenk vs. US. Again, this doesn't prove that this is universal, just that you believe that it should be. While this also makes sense to me, and is a very basic concept, there have still been myriad countries that have limited "free speech" further in order to protect the interests of another, such as a government, and could be said to have done so legitimately. Freedom of speech is clearly situational in that, even in the United States, free speech is not always guaranteed in the same ways all the time. It fluctuates with the needs of the country. Then, you take countries like China, which restrict it even further. We as citizens of the US call it a human rights violation, but how can we be sure? Is it only US law that determines what universal rights should be? The sub-Saharan example serves as a stark reminder that cultures develop different moralities and ethics, and to superimpose one on another causes integral damage to a society. Though it might be said that these societies did have a strong tribal sense, that "moral standard" was shattered in the wake of colonialism, and once peaceful tribes began to war furiously, both within the tribe and with other tribes. In fact, tribal lines were often dissolved, which shouldn't be able to happen if the instinct to protect the tribe is so strong. The 180-degree reversal of the environment in which they existed caused moral upheaval. To address the New Guinea example, those specific tribes have put rules on warring at this point, but other countries can achieve nationalism without such frequent battles—why does THIS society feel it necessary to fight in order to bond? Not only that, but how many generations did it take to refine those warring standards? Chances are the standards are in response to societal changes, such as people dying too much or societal instability, rather than an innate desire to not war. Obviously, they still want to fight each other. First of all, native peoples have intellectualized their moral codes. They have come to the conclusion that, based on their society's needs and their resources at hand, these are the best moral codes to abide by (like the tribes of New Guinea). All humans intellectualize their moral standards. That's why they are moral standards. They come from something more than instinct that only humans can offer up. On the closing arguments regarding Founders: though you and I affirm certain standards, as does a majority of the UN, not every country is willing to ratify these standards. My argument here doesn't prove that genocide, for example, is RIGHT. Not only that, but the fact that genocide happens and that the UN felt the need to enforce a moral standard restricting it, or any other behavior, proves that these standards cannot be universal. Otherwise, humans in every society would never feel the need or want to commit genocide or take away gifted rights.