args

Morality is Not Universal

First I thank my opponent, EvanK, for accepting. I will start off this debate by saying that Morality is not a universal concept and should not be treated as such. " ----The Definition of Morality First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Mar 14, 2011 The term "morality" can be used either descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons." -From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy indicates that morality is not something that can be taken and used as a universal standard. It is a reference to a "code of conduct" that is enforced by a society, religion or group. Which is not every person. Different groups and societies, especially religion, have different beliefs and idea. Morality being one of those differences in beliefs. -Ethnocentrism "Ethnocentrism is the assumption, usually unconscious, that "one"s own group is the center of everything" and that its beliefs, practices, and norms provide the standards by which other groups are "scaled and rated" (Sumner 1906, 12-13). This can lead to arrogance and intolerance in dealings with other countries, ethical systems, and religions." -From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Ethnocentrism is believing your ideas and beliefs are superior to others beliefs. It doesn't have to be on purpose and can be an absentminded action. When you treat morality as a universal concept you are unconsciously assuming your beliefs are of a higher rank than another persons. which leads me to my third point. "The eating of human flesh was not practised by the Australian native to the extent that it was by the South Sea Islander. The term "cannibalism" is usually taken to mean gorging on human flesh, and with relish; and that seems a valid description of the cannibalism of the Melanesian indig"nes of New Caledonia, who appear to have regarded man-meat much as we regard the Sunday-joint. Not all cannibalism is the same in purpose. In hard summers, the new-born children were all eaten by the Kaura tribe in the neighbourhood of Adelaide, according to Dr McKinley. In 1933 I was able to talk to old men who had eaten human flesh. The chief of Yam Island described to me how he had eaten finely-chopped man-meat mixed with crocodile-meat, at his initiation. He added that it had made him sick. The purpose, as he put it, was "to make heart come strong inside." In the Wotjobaluk tribe, a couple who already had a child might kill their new-born and feed its muscle-flesh to the other one to make it strong. The baby was killed ritually, by striking its head against the shoulder of its elder brother or sister. Human flesh-eating among many tribes was a sign of respect for the dead. At a Dieri burial, relatives received, in strict order of precedence, small portions of the body-fat to eat. "We eat him," a tribesman said, "because we knew him and were fond of him." But revenge cannibalism is typified in the custom of the Ngarigo tribe, who ate the flesh of the hands and feet of slain enemies, and accompanied the eating with loud expressions of contempt for the people killed." -From Heretical.com This is an Australian tribe that believes it is moral to eat humans. It is a part of their religion and according to the definition of morality, since they believe in this and established it in their society and religion it is moral. When in the United States most people will think that is wrong and immoral. Making it a societal idea and belief rather than a universal one. Therefore morality is not a universal concept.