args

Morality is Not Universal

For a brief road map, I will go over my opponents arguments and then enforce my own. His first argument was to say that it is "impossible to prove a certain set of moral beliefs to be true" Which is completely correct, until he goes on to say that certain key values can be determined to be moral whether everyone agrees or not. But, if everyone does not agree then we still have to fail to recognize morality as a universal concept since every person or group or society could have a different view of what morality is. Which he also stated in the beginning of his argument, that morality is a broad term. He mentions one of the basic key values of morality is the aspect of killing but as I said in my previous arguments other people and religions have different ideas of whether killing is moral or not. Which is what we are debating, whether morality is a term that can be used universally and accepted with the same ideas in mind. -created equal- I believe that my opponent is attempting to make the point that humans may not think they are superior to other humans and that they have no right to hurt others or to believe killing them is not immoral. Which is his personal belief and view as to what morality is. This argument is directed at my point that some Australian tribes believe it is moral to eat human flesh. I am not saying that I agree with this, but what I am saying is that others have different opinions as to what the definition of morality is. Which again, his argument does not fit in with the debate considering it is proving that his definition of what is moral is different from what the definition of morality is to other people. -logic- Again, his point is that humans do not have the authority or right to kill other humans. I agree, but there is other people who do not agree on the meaning of the word morality which is why it was possible for my opponent to say that morality is a broad term in the beginning of his arguments. He says it isn't ethnocentrism because it is logical to believe that humans cannot kill other humans. But just by saying that is an example of ethnocentrism. Saying that it is only logical to believe that you But, if everyone does not agree then we still have to fail to recognize morality as a universal concept since every person or group or society could have a different view of what morality is. Which he also stated in the beginning of his argument, that morality is a broad term. He mentions one of the basic key values of morality is the aspect of killing but as I said in my previous arguments other people and religions have different ideas of whether killing is moral or not. Which is what we are debating, whether morality is a term that can be used universally and accepted with the same ideas in mind. -created equal- I believe that my opponent is attempting to make the point that humans may not think they are superior to other humans and that they have no right to hurt others or to believe killing them is not immoral. Which is his personal belief and view as to what morality is. This argument is directed at my point that some Australian tribes believe it is moral to eat human flesh. I am not saying that I agree with this, but what I am saying is that others have different opinions as to what the definition of morality is. Which again, his argument does not fit in with the debate considering it is proving that his definition of what is moral is different from what the definition of morality is to other people. -logic- Again, his point is that humans do not have the authority or right to kill other humans. I agree, but there is other people who do not agree on the meaning of the word morality which is why it was possible for my opponent to say that morality is a broad term in the beginning of his arguments. He says it isn't ethnocentrism because it is logical to believe that humans cannot kill other humans. But just by saying that is an example of ethnocentrism. Saying that it is only logical to believe that you should not and cannot kill a person and eat their flesh is saying that that idea is superior to any other. The people in those Australian tribes believe differently and you are therefore saying that they are wrong and your idea is dominant over theirs is ethnocentrism. As for my on case, my points stand strong. According to the definition of morality any code of conduct that is implemented in a society or religion or group may be considered moral. Since there are many different groups of people, societies and religions with different ideas as to what is right and wrong we can see that morality is not a universal idea. I respectfully urge a vote for pro.