args

There is no universal moral standard.

This is my first created debate at this website, so please bear with me as I experiment. I apologize for my possible miscategorization. At first blush, the most common arguments for moral absolutism will be from a theistic standpoint, but I address the biological con as well. This is a debate that I will be performing very soon in public, and wanted to test drive it here! This particular debate boils down to the universality of a moral code amongst members of the human race. For the purposes of debate, my position is that all moral conceptions are relative, hence established by cultural/geographical/etc. schema, rather than via a priori knowledge or knowledge otherwise transmitted by a deity, whichever you will. Since I'm not sure how much detail goes into my initial post, I will simplify my answer for the purposes of beginning a debate and refine my position as needed. Essentially, there is simply too much moral variance in the world to believe that a supreme being has instilled in us, via a priori methods, divination, holy communication, etc., any sort of universally right or wrong moral code. The issue of the death penalty is a very illustrative example. Though most first world countries have eliminated capital punishment from the punitive menu, and though Western religions clearly forbid murder (the commandments are often cited as a Essentially, there is simply too much moral variance in the world to believe that a supreme being has instilled in us, via a priori methods, divination, holy communication, etc., any sort of universally right or wrong moral code. The issue of the death penalty is a very illustrative example. Though most first world countries have eliminated capital punishment from the punitive menu, and though Western religions clearly forbid murder (the commandments are often cited as a universal code of ethics), the United States, to the chagrin of the first world, still allows murder by the state in exchange for extreme criminal activity. I will even go so far as to say that moral universalism based on human biology is also flawed. Though I have a decent fundamental knowledge of genetic histories of human beings and especially of our behavioral and genetic tendencies to being social, evolution clearly negates the possibility of a universal moral code. After all, societies routinely incorporate what some of us would call "morally objectionable" actions into their daily lives, and they still exist and thrive. Again, murder becomes my example of choice, specifically in the context of warring tribes & other, more rural societies. Warring tribes in sub-Saharan Africa conflicted naturally and "normally" for centuries prior to Western invasion. Those tribes thrived via their "uncivilized" and often "barbaric" conflict codes. It was not until their value and societal systems were crushed and supplanted with Western systems that they were devastated. 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. The fact that countries are even able to hegemonically spread their cultural belief systems negates the existence of a universal moral code. Have at me! :D