How would you debunk cultural relativism

Social Darwinism. Morals are teleological. They exist to preserve the existence of society. Societies with shit morals die and get replaced by other societies. See: the West imploding and surrendering territory to third world immigrant cultures since the West adopted moral relativism.

Islam is truly the best moral system

/thread

OP btfo

Divine revelation. Anything else is on thin ice.

How? The Islamic moral system is seen by many in the Muslim world as backwards and barbaric. They are even willing to commit apostasy by migrating over to infidel nations to escape it.

the fact that libs hate russia

I do not, I merely assert my particular culture as the one I generally prefer

Pretty much. Open and shut case.

>human rights
Trust me. Your ability to go into the opposite genders bathroom because you identify as a women despite being a man is NOT a human right.

Can you rephrase your point, i don't get it

This should answer your question OP.

the laws of physics are the same everywhere, so must be morals

environments are different and what is practical differs from place to place, but overarching morals do not

hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/hreduseries/hereandnow/Part-5/8_udhr-abbr.htm

Who's to say these values should be universally imposed upon all of mankind?

Everyone?

Holy shit I had low expectation for Veeky Forums, but this thread really takes the cake for ignorance and willful stupidity.

Why

Ironically it's an affirmation against your pic.
>relativism
>equality

In other words:
>different
>no differences.

Gotta pick one, because you can't be different and the same. Rejecting superiority and weakness can't be considered superior because it's good and good is better than bad. Oy veyyyy, shut it down!

>Everyone?
Really? Since these values aren't shared by most of the world historically or contemporary it seems that "everyone" isn't the right answer.

What about: normatively a reasonable subject would always endorse those values

>normatively a reasonable subject would always endorse those values
This list is so vague it has no meaning. Although the same is true for the concept of human rights in general.

>Right to Equality
Equality of what? Race? Gender? Opportunity? Obviously not economic. These things are not equal anyway nor can they be by definition.
>Freedom from Discrimination
So can I discriminant against a criminal? Against a drunk driving my car? Hell, can I legally choose who I associate with?
>Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security
When does life begin? Conception? All abortions should be illegal than. Oh, 5 months? why the arbitrary number? Not while in the womb? No one would deny a baby 10 seconds from being born is a proper baby. Also is the death penalty harem now? I guess because the UN says so a town can't execute that guy who killed a dozen people.

"Liberty" is a buzzword. My liberty to discriminant is taken away by someones liberty to have full access to whatever they want from me.
>Freedom from Slavery
What business is it of some Westerner if some tribe in deepest Africa which has practiced slavery for generations wants to continue doing it? Why should I even care?
>Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment
I think both torture and "degrading treatment" are appropriate in certain situations. Also define torture? After all, someone could make the case spending a week in jail is torture.
>Right to Equality before the Law
Taken to its logical conclusion this would mean people suffering from insanity would need to be treated the same as people who are sane. "equality before the law" is neither practical nor desirable.
>Right to Remedy by Competent Tribunal
Competent is subjective in many cases.
>Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Exile
What someone calls arbitrary, another might call completely appropriate.

These are just your subjective criticism of what is decidedly normal and objective by you. You are us after all, us as you could agree. You aren't like those uneducated idiot trash.

it should push cultural marxism's shit in the way cultural marxism has inflicted.

>So vague it has no meaning

Actually it's very specific. Read Rawls if you havn't, he has some really interesting ways of generating intersubjective normative values.

Why do you always spam that Lewis bullshit and then just leave, or, instead of leaving, just spam more Lewis bullshit, without having any actual discussion?

If morality is subjective why in the world should I follow it?

relativism doesn't assert equality between possibilities, only their contingency.

for the good of your lineage, your inhabited society, and your own prosperity. Good by this definition would be something of productivity; benefit. A bad temper for example, benefits no one, thus it might be considered immoral.

If you define "a reasonable subject" as "someone who supports the same conception of human rights as me" then yes

You already believe in moral relativism, you believe that your morality is relatively better than others.

From an existentialist perspective it is without a doubt. But that can't really be used in a practical setting in real life. It's useful for historical and scientific studies, and perhaps keeping an open mind when visiting different countries but that's it.

It would be better for my lineage if I were to abuse and cheat everyone I could, thus securing more wealth
As for the inhabited society, there's no reason to work for its benefit since you have no objective moral reason to

To count morality as relative removes all authority it has

Moral/cultural relativism doesn't mean you can't enforce your views on others if you think your views are superior. I like how Brits dealt with sati, for example:
>Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs

Utilitarianism is just disguised moral realism.

His point was that propogation alone doesn't define good morals. If the propagation of society is all that matters then sharia law and the killing and conquering of infidels must be morally good because it expands the influence of Islamic society.

>It would be better for my lineage if I were to abuse and cheat everyone I could, thus securing more wealth
Maybe in a unique situation, but not in most I might argue. You're also forgetting that if you chose a path of unrighteousness, the only thing of importance one leaves behind postmortem, which is legacy, would be tainted.

"We can't judge cultural practices morally!"

Well, slavery, widow burning, genocidal warfare, etc have all been cultural practices. Those who espouse cultural relativism don't hesitate to criticize the west. If you meet one, just point out that American slavery was cultural practice. Watch the double think.