reply with your opinion in 3 hours:

Reply to the student with 200 words and a citation. You may quote something they said in order to help the word count.

Two primary schools of thought arguing either “morality is relative” or “morality is universal’ attempt to explain human motives for moral or immoral behavior.  Both schools of thought have strengths and weaknesses, with some motives for morality lying in the balance between the two. I agree that largely human morality is universal.
            The “morality is universal” theory argues that “moral principles are binding on all people regardless of their personal desires, culture or religion,” (Boss, 2016, p. 2014).  This can be exemplified by the Indian principle of “Dharma” or the essence of human beings to possess intrinsic traits that are uniquely human such as rationale, morals, and dignity.  This principle also recognizes all humans having human dignity rather than personal dignity, indicating that all humans are born with value and worth simply by being human (Kishore, 2016, pp. 98, 102). Strengths of the “morality is universal” theory includes the principle of utility, which seeks to make moral decisions based on the outcome that will result in the greatest amount of pleasure for society.  Although the principle of utility seems pragmatic and efficient, it is also a weakness of the “morality is universal” theory.  Despite the effectiveness to use people as puzzle-pieces to contribute to over-all happiness of a civilization, it removes the individual rights that people possess to pursue their own journey, and conflicts with the liberty rights branch of rights-based ethics (Boss, 2016, pp. 285, 289). Both Kant and W.D. Ross’s theories hold all humans to a duty of practicing morality and ethics- another strength of the “morality as universal” theory.  Kant’s theory holds all humans to a set of moral guidelines that are equalizing as it cites no exceptions. Ross’s prima facie duties are more realistic than Kant’s because they allow one moral obligation to be over-ridden by circumstance if another moral decision supersedes it as “more compelling.” Although duty-based ethics are good grounds for universal decision making, these theories lack “the role of sentiment and care ethics in moral decision making,” (Boss, 2016, p.287).  
            The “morality is relative” theory argues that “people create morality and that there are no universal or shared moral principles,” (Boss, 2016, p.281). Cultural relativism can be good for society, if the society exemplifies morally correct decisions.  For example, if a child is raised in a society where stealing and violence are unacceptable, the child will mirror society and make morally correct decisions.  This desire to belong to a culture can encourage individuals to make correct moral decisions to be accepted.  However, this template for moral decisions can be dangerous.  If stealing and violence are modeled by a culture, a child or outside individual will mirror these actions to belong to the community. For example, slavery is condoned in some cultures because it is considered a cultural norm, thus morally correct (Boss, 2016, p. 282).
            I agree with the “morality is universal theory” based on neuroscience and global consistencies. A universal morality argument is made when examining the case of Phineas Gage.  After traumatic brain injury Gage was unable to make decisions based on morals despite retaining intellectual and motor skills.  Gage’s case supports morality as a biological property of humans.  Similarly, neurologist, Pincus’ findings that “violent crime is strongly correlated with neurological abnormalities in the brain” indicates a connection between morals and biology (Boss, 2016, 272).  Finally, the link between seven of the world’s major religions and reciprocity supports the argument for universal morality.  Being that means of global communication did not exist when these religions were founded, one can deduce that humans have a fundamental understanding of morality, as each religion sought similar standards.
Words: 600
*I added one additional in-text citation after writing, that citation will bump the word count up to 603.
References:
Boss, J. (2016). Think: Critical Thinking and Logic Skills for Everyday Life. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Kishore, R. (2016). Bioethics, virtues, and human dignity: western notion and the Indian perception. Journal International de Bioéthique; Paris, 27(4): 89-104,132-133. Retrieved from” ProQuest database.