CreateDebate


Debate Info

11
4
Relativism Realism
Debate Score:15
Arguments:12
Total Votes:19
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Relativism (8)
 
 Realism (4)

Debate Creator

Harvard(660) pic



Morality: Realism vs. Relativism

Is morality relative to the individual; or does it exist independently from our beliefs?
Definitions: 

Moral relativism: is the view that moral judgement are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.  It has often been associated with other claims about morality: notably, the thesis that different cultures often exhibit radically different moral values; the denial that there are universal moral values shared by every human society; and the insistence that we should refrain from passing moral judgments on beliefs and practices characteristic of cultures other than our own.

Moral Realism: (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them.

Relativism

Side Score: 11
VS.

Realism

Side Score: 4

The concept of morality comes from a combination of human nature and social norms. Neither of these are universally uniform across all human beings so morality is destined to be relativistic.

Side: Relativism

Shame there isn't a three option format on this website.

My vote is for Moral Non-Cognativism, so I figured I'll put it on Relativism since they are both irrealist in nature.

Side: Relativism
Jace(5078) Disputed
1 point

Moral non-cognativism (MNC) strikes me as a somewhat disingenuous and rather desperate attempt to salvage morality from its relativistic, non-objective nature. If we are going to call moral judgements and opinions mere attitudes of (dis)approval, then it seems me can and must render all opinions equally non-cognitive which makes the distinction itself moot. For what is the difference between the moral statement X is good and the religious statement God is real? Could not the fallibility of God be equally dismissed as irrelevant by arguing that saying God is real is merely an attitudinal expression of preference that God be real? Upon what basis do you draw a valid distinction?

Moreover, morality does not appear to function merely as an expression of preferences by simple virtue of the fact that it is leveraged to regulate the behavior of other people according to artificially construct ideas of what is right or wrong rather than as personal expressions of preference for how they might act if they wished to satisfy the preferences of other people.

Side: Realism
1 point

Given the diversity of moral attitudes across time and space, the growing body of psychological research demonstrating the heavy influence of social and familial conditioning on moral cognition, and the utter lack of evidence that any absolute morality exists the most reasonable conclusion is that morality is relativistic.

Side: Relativism
1 point

The only societies which treat morals as absolutes are the theocracies such as ISIS or the Vatican. The reason most world societies opted instead for a plethora of laws to deal with the shades of gray as well as a government at least partially separate from their dominant religion is because of centuries of failure of those absolute positions to serve society fairly.

Side: Relativism
Jace(5078) Disputed
1 point

I am skeptical that "most world societies" have abandoned moral absolutism and switched to moral relativism. A complex legal system, which can exist in theocracies in spite of your biased misunderstanding of them, is not the same as being morally relativistic. The true measure of relativism is whether the rules which exist, in any number, are applied absolutely or with exception based upon the moral attitudes of the individual parties in question. I am familiar with no society which engages in this practice.

Seems to me like you are trying to bend a complex philosophical issue to justify your rather unfounded anti-theocratic bias...

Side: Realism
-1 points

Abortion is the perfect example of moral relativism. Protecting innocent human life is a matter of humanity and it should be considered immoral to support such inhumanity regardless from what point of view you are speaking.

The nazi's justified killing Jews under moral relativism. Abortion is just another holocaust justified by a different group of selfish people with the morals of animals. They will use life of mother excuses(that no one fights against) to excuse and hide their support for all abortions at any stage when they vote for Democrats.

Side: Realism
2 points

You don't know what moral relativism is .

Side: Relativism
Jace(5078) Disputed
1 point

Abortion cannot be considered immoral from all points of view if all points of view do not regard it as immoral. To assert that it should be categorically immoral is merely to assert your own personal moral standard as absolute without providing any basis for why this should be the case beyond appeal to that moral standard, which is circular reasoning.

The Third Reich used moral absolutism, actually. That is what made it permissible, imperative even, that inferior persons and dissidents be eliminated. Those types of people introduced a relativity that was inconsistent with the absolutism of the Third Reich regime and its moral narrative.

Side: Relativism
FromWithin(8264) Disputed
1 point

To try an excuse inhumanity against one group of people merely because the killers do not regard it as being immoral, is anarchy, complete destruction of society.

Under this anything goes logic(as long as the people say it fits in their set of moral views) we saw the holocaust of Jews as well as many other atrocities happening now in this world.

Side: Realism