args

Morality is Not Universal

1-"My opponent is trying to make the argument that no human being is superior to another and if they think that they are then it is their responsibility to prove that they are and why they believe it is so. But, that is not what we are debating." This is a misrepresentation on my argument. From my round two argument: "First off, I think it's impossible to prove a certain set of moral beliefs to be true (whether it's the morality of Christianity, Islam, or a particular tribe) but I do believe it's possible to establish certain key values to be moral, whether or not everyone agrees. One of the most basic ones, which I will focus on, is the aspect of killing". As I said, you cannot prove a certain set of moral rules as completely true, or completely false. But, as I said, I believe I can show that certain aspects of morality can be shown to be universally true, whether or not some people think so or not. The one aspect I chose to focus on was whether or not killing is universally, morally wrong. To show this, I made the argument that because no human is superior to another, he has no right to decide whether or not another human, or many humans, can live or die. If one cannot show that he is superior to another human, then it logically follows that he has no claim to the right to kill another human. In other words, killing another human is morally wrong whether or one believes so or not. That is the argument that I have been trying to make, and that my opponent has failed to refute. 2-Ethnocentrism My opponent accuses me and my arguments of ethnocentrism {1}, but I think I have shown that we can come to the logical conclusion that killing another human is wrong, without bringing in culture or any such thing into the picture. One can believe that it is morally permissible to kill other humans, but that doesn't make it moral. You may argue that because not everyone accepts it, that means morality is not universal. But as I said, all we need to do is use logic to come to the conclusion that killing is not moral. Ask someone who believes killing is ok why he believes so, and see whether or not it is a logical answer. As I have been arguing, to show that it is morally permissible to kill another human, one must show why he has the right to do such a thing to someone who is equal to him. If he cannot do so, he has no right to kill another human, making killing other humans morally wrong, and universally so. Universally accepted? Maybe not, but I can choose to believe that 2+2=5, but that doesn't mean that math is not a universal concept. 3-Conclusion In conclusion, I have shown that, while not every aspect of morality of a certain religious or ethnic code can be proven universal, I have shown that certain aspects, such as killing, can be shown to be universally morally wrong, using logic. And while some may choose not to accept it, that doesn't make it any less true. Just because one person believes it is moral to kill another human, doesn't make the idea of killing humans universally morally wrong false. I once again thank my opponent for a fun and interesting debate. Not an easy subject to debate, but certainly an enjoyable one.