Instigator / Con
0
1706
rating
32
debates
81.25%
won
Topic

Resolved: Objective Morality is real

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
0
Sources points
0
0
Spelling and grammar points
0
0
Conduct points
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Pro
0
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description
~ 963 / 5,000

Resolution: "Objective Morality is real"

Instigator: Theweakeredge - Con "Objective morality is not real"
Contender: User - Pro "Objective morality is real"

The term "Objective" would modify the noun "Morality" therefore one should define Objective as it's definition as an adjective:

Objective - "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual."
Morality - "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

Therefore Pro is arguing for the proposition - "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong and wrong or good and bad behavior are not dependent on a mind for existence."

https://www.lexico.com/ - The Oxford English and Spanish dictionary

Any questions or clarifications can be discussed in the comments or pmed to me privately.

Ground rules:

-No new arguments after R2
-Forfeiture = Conduct unless all rounds after first is forfeited.
-Have fun and be honest

To a good debate and all.

Round 1
Con
Resolution: Objective morality is real


Opening Statement:  

Thanks for accepting Seldiora, this debate is actually a rematch of my very first debate here, 7 debates later for myself, let’s see how it goes this time around. I have already defined the terms of the resolution in the description but I will give a list of key terms within this section, but first, the housekeeping. 

BoP: I am against the resolution, and therefore must demonstrate the proposition, “Objective morality is not real.” While my opponent must demonstrate the opposite proposition to fulfill their burden. 

Structure: I have no argument to rebuke this round, so instead I will introduce a simple argument that will support the aforementioned burdened proposition, followed by my concluding thoughts and any sources I used here within.

Key Terms: 

Objective - “Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.”
Morality - “Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." 
Real - “Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.”
Subjective - “Dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence”



Morality is subjective

This will be my only argument this round, and it is fairly simple:

P1: Morality is definitionally contingent on principles
P2: All principles used to affirm morality are from the mind
Con: Therefore all morality is definitionally subjective. 



Conclusion:

I understand that this is not very intuitive, but it logically follows, my opponent must not only debunk this syllogism but also provide evidence of objective morality on which prescribes their argument. 


Back to Pro

Pro
As promised, I will use my analysis of MisterChris's argument to prove Objective Morality exists.

Q1: If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles (according to rational men) that is the truth, for example, concerning life, liberty, and happiness.

Though it seems intuitive, let me explain. If something is there, then intelligent and logical beings will agree it is there. It does not matter what irrational think; it is there. Therefore all rational people who have ability to observe, are forced to admit the object is there. As such, all rational human beings ought to be able to observe some sense of the "Good" or "Bad" in the world to prove that it objectively exists. Even though it is a vague idea, merely requiring observation to prove and interpret, does not mean it is objective. (ex: we require a person looking through a microscope and interpreting bacteria to know it exists. Scientists can come up with consensus, based on definition of bacteria, that bacteria exist. This doesn't mean bacteria are subjective)

Q2: In the case of humans, it is because what our species believes its transcendental set of moral principles are (derived from "nature of man").
Despite different views, all of them concern similar ideas (freedom, love, universal rights, etc.). 

The Declaration of Independence says, "all men are born with equal rights... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", claiming its self-evident nature. While we have had seemingly contradictory views in regards to other people, there is no refuting that all men believe that themselves hold these natural rights. We think of ourselves as important. It is the only thing that has allowed us to survive so far. Because human's evolutionary traits are pre-determined to let oneself survive, this common nature in man is beyond our control and self thoughts. Conflicts of precisely what the judgements of society is based upon doesn't negate the more objective morality. Whether egoism defeats utilitarianism is something else entirely. Merely because we can value some lives over another, does not mean they have no rights. So any culture that seems to contradict this merely values these at a different level, rather than say they do not exist at all.

Q3: All humans use and appeal to this standard, if only subconsciously, shown within disputes that are comparable to a universal standard.

As Misterchris notes, if there was no universal standard, you could say "your argument is BS", and dismiss it. But throughout different cultures we have cultivated disagreements, coming to agreement, and other ideas that imply there is a transcendental standard. If "Gravity" definition could change merely based on people's sayings, rather than a formal dictionary, then we could not prove that gravity objectively exists. Even though humans assigned "gravity" word arbitrarily to the idea, the idea of things being attracted to a heavy object still exists, even if in other languages it is not exactly "gravity" in pronunciation or spelling. The meaning will retain the same value in the end, and so the debates over contradictory values can still refer to objective morality existing somewhere.

Q4: The reasoning behind this, is that humans are genetically disposed to protect one self, their family, and their cultures. The weighing of survival and suffering among different cultures, is seen throughout human history, which proves the basic ideals being backed by entirety of humanity.

Scientific evidence has shown the result of this. A scholarly study basically says the exact same thing I did, except more wordy: "An objective basis for morality can be found in an evolutionary account of its origin and development. Morality is a key factor in the success of human groups in competition or co-existence with one another. A group's moral code represents an increasingly rational pattern of behavior derived from the collective experience of the group handed down from generation to generation. Group selection is a controversial idea for animal evolution but it is inescapable in accounting for human evolution under the influence of language and the accumulation of cultural patterns. Further, morality has an objective physiological and neurological basis in so far as it exists to moderate the expression of the array of genetically-derived emotional patterns. "

As you can see, even though our genes before could seem to contradict this idea -- we cannibalize people, we commit murder, etc. The specific cases does not negate the overall more objective morality developments. I do not have to make the case of, should Aztec people sacrifice men to the Gods. They had their personal beliefs and genetic history that led up to this moment in time. Even though killing an innocent itself can be subjective morality, the idea of protecting yourself and the culture ("The Gods demand a sacrifice!") is still upheld. So no contradiction exists here.

C1: Morality is objective.


Round 2
Con
Rebuttals:

Q1: If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles (according to rational men) that is the truth, for example, concerning life, liberty, and happiness.
As MisterChris isn't here to clarify his position, I apologize if I misinterpret this claim, but as Seldiora is using the argument literally copy and paste, I have to rebut it. 

Notice the structure of the premise listen here, IF x, then y. Essentially Y is true and only true if X is true. This means that this argument that is supposed to prove objective morality is begging the question. Essentially this by itself doesn't prove anything. It's supposed to be used as a rhetorical proposition which is built upon later. However, even if I were to address it as a proposition it would still be fallacious. 

Let's take the essential claims being made here:

1. That all rational people (Notice the blatant sexism there) hold the same set of moral standards.
2. That is 1 is true, objective morality is true. 

Notice the first claim is essentially an appeal to an ad populum that if a large population of people accepts a proposition that proposition is necessarily true. This is false, notice that if this were true then the proposition that the sun revolves around the planet would be true, the proposition that diseases are caused by demons and spirits, and thus many more claims which are blatantly false.

This proposition is not only an ad populum and begging the question but is also a strawman. As the sort of objectivity, I described in my  description is the sort that can be defined as follows: "That which is true independent from the mid." This claim is saying that all of these are held by those projecting their mind's morality that just so happens to be in sync as Objective Morality. This is proposition is thereby definitionally false.



If something is there, then intelligent and logical beings will agree it is there.
This is false. Are you saying every single theist is illogical and believes there to be a god irrationally? Are you saying that every atheist is logical and believes there to be no god rationally? Do you believe purports of cosmic inflation are all logical and the ones of the big bang are all illogical? You are fundamentally incorrect here, this is my opponent establishing a false dichotomy. 

X is true, either you accept it because you are rational or you do not accept it because you are irrational. 

Notice that this is essentially unnuanced, untrue, and a simple naive way to view the truth of a proposition. While it is true that a proposition is either false, true, or partially true/false, what rational/intelligent beings agree on is much more complicated than that. People are not perfectly rational beings and this is a hypothetical that does not exist and is also the very fundamental support from which pro asserts their claim.


It does not matter what irrational think; it is there.
Again, nobody is perfectly rational, this is not only a hypothetical being used as evidence but also just logically flawed as I have already pointed out.


Therefore all rational people who have ability to observe, are forced to admit the object is there.
The problem there is not all rational people can observe objective morality, as objective morality isn't a physical notion, it's an abstract notion. Due to the fact that morality is inherently abstract, Pro would have to demonstrate an example of such "Objective Morality" else we could not measure, observe, etc.. to verify if it is actually objective. Not to mention this is also simply not true, Pro is false, people who are rational can come to a reasonable conclusion is some instances that an object is there or not there. Information is also important. 


As such, all rational human beings ought to be able to observe some sense of the "Good" or "Bad" in the world to prove that it objectively exists.
Ought implies that the proposed claim is a moral obligation that we are supposed to follow, so humans are morally obligated to observe a sense of bad or good? This is nonsense, and a clear example of Pro not understanding basic prepositional statements in regards to moral syllogisms. Beyond that Pro is claiming here that if humans interpret good or bad then morality is objective. What? That's a complete non-sequitur, not only does it not fulfill my definition of objective as I provided, but it is also not taking into account that all people are biased, and are not perfectly rational, not to mention not all people who are rational see bad or good, nihilists for example. 


 Even though it is a vague idea, merely requiring observation to prove and interpret, does not mean it is objective
Agreed it doesn't, you kind of just rebutted your own point! Just because a claim is something that you can observe, prove, or interest that doesn't mean that claim is true, evidence is still required for the claim to be considered a propositional true claim. Perhaps you mean, "it isn't objective" well then you are simply asserting something without evidence there, you would have to prove it. Either way, my point stands.


(ex: we require a person looking through a microscope and interpreting bacteria to know it exists. Scientists can come up with consensus, based on definition of bacteria, that bacteria exist. This doesn't mean bacteria are subjective)
This is false, we know that bacteria physically exist within the 3-dimensional plane we inhabit, Morality is not the same, it is an abstract work of a mind (thereby definitionally not objective) Scientists do not "use the definition of bacteria" to prove that bacteria exist, they look at a piece of bacteria, can measure, observe, etc, it and therefore prove it is objectively real. In this instance this is a false analogy, not to mention Pro misunderstanding how basic science works. 


Q2: In the case of humans, it is because what our species believes its transcendental set of moral principles are (derived from "nature of man").
Despite different views, all of them concern similar ideas (freedom, love, universal rights, etc.). 
I won't go as in-depth as I did for the last claim, as I don't need to, a "transcendental" set of moral principles are assumed to be true. Why? This is not proving anything, if anything this is more reasonably lacking foundation than even the claim of a metaphysical plane! What about morality is axiomatically true? Henceforth why do humans believing it make it objective? None of this is at all a sequitur. Not to mention this is again a claim, that has not been justified and can not be justified, there is no way to prove that all views of morality in the human condition are the same. The burden of proof lays in the one who makes a disputable claim. 


The Declaration of Independence says, "all men are born with equal rights... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", claiming its self-evident nature.
This is true simply for the birth of a societal contract, a contract which is necessarily needed for the foundation of civilization. This again does not prove that it is true, all this does is assert it true legally. It is beneficial for the government to act as if this is necessarily true, it's for the sake of pragmatism, nothing else.


While we have had seemingly contradictory views in regards to other people, there is no refuting that all men believe that themselves hold these natural rights.
Yes there is, men having equal rights is a claim that requires evidence to support it, yes they do have legal rights which are equal (as well as woman), but this does not mean that humans have natural or inherent rights, and I would dispute that heavily. This would imply that humans have some sort of natural objective value which has not been demonstrated by Pro.


We think of ourselves as important.
That is subjective, not objective. 


It is the only thing that has allowed us to survive so far. Because human's evolutionary traits are pre-determined to let oneself survive, this common nature in man is beyond our control and self thoughts.
Again, this is Pro conflating what is the pragmatic course of action for the objective course of action. Yes it is what we needed to evolve (potentially), but this debate is not whether the notion of objective morality is useful, it is whether it is true, and that has not been demonstrated by the fact that humans happen to believe it. Again, Pro has made assertions without evidence.


Conflicts of precisely what the judgements of society is based upon doesn't negate the more objective morality.
No, it exactly demonstrates that morality isn't objective. If the proposition of objective morality is based upon the claim that all people who are rational have the same notions and principles for that which is moral then that means any rational person who has a different view is literally evidence that morality isn't objective. This nonsense, not to mention that Pro has not demonstrated objective morality for there to be a negation.


Whether egoism defeats utilitarianism is something else entirely.
That doesn't matter in regards to the point, and I don't care, as it doesn't apply to either of our positions. 


Merely because we can value some lives over another, does not mean they have no rights. So any culture that seems to contradict this merely values these at a different level, rather than say they do not exist at all.
Objectivity is something which is true, if it is true that killing is wrong, then killing is wrong, if one civilization valued that less than they valued another principal then that would just prove that neither civilization is using the objective standard to justify otherwise it would be true in regards the same. This is once more, a flawed statement


Q3: All humans use and appeal to this standard, if only subconsciously, shown within disputes that are comparable to a universal standard.
Prove it. That's really all that's necessary here, prove your claim or else I can dismiss it. 


As Misterchris notes, if there was no universal standard, you could say "your argument is BS", and dismiss it.
Precisely. Though it would be more accurate to say, "If no evidence was presented, you could dissmiss it" that assumes that a universal standard is neccesarily true and has been negated, which is not true. 


But throughout different cultures we have cultivated disagreements, coming to agreement, and other ideas that imply there is a transcendental standard.
"Imply" not demonstrate or prove, and different cultures are still in conflict and still have different notions, note the difference between Texas and Califronia, America and China, India and Russia, Pro is simply asserting this to be true, but this has still not been proven, and there is no evidence nor any reason to believe a trancendental standard. 


If "Gravity" definition could change merely based on people's sayings, rather than a formal dictionary, then we could not prove that gravity objectively exists.
I am using a formal dictionary to define objectivity, I am not sure to the relavence of this sentence, as my english teacher would suggest, "If a sentence doesn't apply to your tie in, you should discard it, it is what is called a junk sentence." In all seriousness, we can prove that gravity objectively exists, it is not contingent on one's mind to be true, whereas Morality is. 


Even though humans assigned "gravity" word arbitrarily to the idea, the idea of things being attracted to a heavy object still exists, even if in other languages it is not exactly "gravity" in pronunciation or spelling.
This is true, and not at all my point. There is an observable gravity, literally, this is not true for morality. Before we could even apply this standard we would have to demonstrate an objective morality, which as I have said, is not true. 


The meaning will retain the same value in the end, and so the debates over contradictory values can still refer to objective morality existing somewhere.
I don't care, not my point, please stop with this semantical arguing due to the fact that you can't jsutify your claims. It is frankly becoming irritating, eithe rdemonstrate your claims or concede please. This is assuming that morality has an inherent meaning, that we could measure it, that we could observe it, etcetera, what I've been pointing out the entire roud. This is another false analogy. 


The reasoning behind this, is that humans are genetically disposed to protect one self, their family, and their cultures. The weighing of survival and suffering among different cultures, is seen throughout human history, which proves the basic ideals being backed by entirety of humanity.
First of all, this is really just a rebrand of what has been claimed over and over in past debates. This is untrue, again, all this proves is that evolution is a process which is pragmatic, not that morality is true indpendent of a mind. The thought that these things are genetically disposed does not at all prove that they are true objectively, what it proves is that they are benefisical to the development of sentient beings, which isn't a proof for them being objective, as why is the development of sentient beings objective? It is something which we value, but not something which is true without our minds. 


Scientific evidence has shown the result of this. A scholarly study basically says the exact same thing I did, except more wordy: "An objective basis for morality can be found in an evolutionary account of its origin and development. Morality is a key factor in the success of human groups in competition or co-existence with one another. A group's moral code represents an increasingly rational pattern of behavior derived from the collective experience of the group handed down from generation to generation. Group selection is a controversial idea for animal evolution but it is inescapable in accounting for human evolution under the influence of language and the accumulation of cultural patterns. Further, morality has an objective physiological and neurological basis in so far as it exists to moderate the expression of the array of genetically-derived emotional patterns. "
This is essentially wordier version of what was said above, and presumes the same thing, that evolunary or human progress is objectively a goal, this has not been demonstrated. This is often a problem whenever scientists make a delve into the philosophic realm without being equipped, as they often make non-sequiturs or the like, hence why sources are impacts for your claims, not neccesarily arguments as this is for Pro.


As you can see, even though our genes before could seem to contradict this idea -- we cannibalize people, we commit murder, etc.
Exactly, even within the realm of biology you admit your case is not concrete. 


The specific cases does not negate the overall more objective morality developments. 
As I have explained, yes it does, and we both have a burden of proof, you still have to prove objective morality exists. Not to mention did you say more objective developments? That would imply that some things are more or less objective than the other, that is not true, a propistion is either objective or subjective, there is no middle ground for propositions. (Note this is different from what humans interept, this is the claim itself.)


do not have to make the case of, should Aztec people sacrifice men to the Gods. They had their personal beliefs and genetic history that led up to this moment in time. Even though killing an innocent itself can be subjective morality, the idea of protecting yourself and the culture ("The Gods demand a sacrifice!") is still upheld. So no contradiction exists here.
The contradiction is that protecting yourself and others is literally directly contrary to murdering people for a sacrifice, this is just an assertion is literally BS, as Pro pointeed out earlier. 


Extend my case as Pro has not negated it. 

Back to Pro.
Pro
I think Con misunderstands my arguments. Essential basis is the evolution outweighing our minds and essentially forcing us to inherently value ourselves and gives us natural rights. When Aztecs believe that Gods want sacrifice, they often think that the alternative is to let the God destroy their whole entire tribe. The lack of information presented doesn't negate the idea that we naturally value our own lives and have ideals that transcend mere thought. It's like Con's belief in determinism as well. We ourselves have no conscious control over the resulting decisions and morality that we make. They are set ahead of time by brain processes, unconscious, that cannot display a subjective morality. If you are stuck with flight or fight mode pre-determined through evolution, I doubt you can make a moral process decision or say it is immoral to run away or immoral to fight, despite both being plausible options. You merely go fight, you merely run away. The morality pre-ordains that it should be okay to do this, because it is already set forth in this manner of speaking. If I am coerced ahead of myself to be forced into doing something, then obviously this is not due to my personal thoughts. If something outside of my control pre-controlled my motions and movements, then I cannot be held morally responsible and be called to said to be immoral. As such, the genetic predisposition holds up and we must have the natural rights to live and liberty, if only to different degrees depending on the culture. Because Con cannot offer a good grounding to base upon why we should reject the natural rights of humanity, the pre-determined variables of the universe basically force us to already agree that we must value lives one way or another. So morality becomes objective rather than subjective. The resolution is upheld.
Round 3
Con
REBUTTALS:

I think Con misunderstands my arguments.
Then I must be committing the informal fallacy, strawman, which is to misrepresent your argument and to attack that misrepresented position. 


Essential basis is the evolution outweighing our minds and essentially forcing us to inherently value ourselves and gives us natural rights.
So you assert, but where does something being pragmatically the truth, essentially that something that is useful to use and necessary for us to have developed, equates to something which is moral truth? There is no causal link there, this is a non-sequitur. 


When Aztecs believe that Gods want sacrifice, they often think that the alternative is to let the God destroy their whole entire tribe. The lack of information presented doesn't negate the idea that we naturally value our own lives and have ideals that transcend mere thought.
No. See now you misrepresent my argument, something is objectively true whenever it is true independent from the mind, therefore such a thing as, "It is wrong to murder," is true without a contingency on a mind. As you said, evolution is the source of that "natural value" but why does something which is useful for our evolution a moral principle? Why does something that develops as a result of evolution, morally right or wrong? Again, there is no causal link.


It's like Con's belief in determinism as well. We ourselves have no conscious control over the resulting decisions and morality that we make.
Ah, this is an interesting point to bring up, just because agents make a decision that isn't chosen by them, does not mean that decision isn't a result of that mind. As without minds, Pro has not demonstrated that the chain of cause and events will ever land at the proposition that "killing is wrong", not only does Pro need to establish that link I've brought up, but they also have to demonstrate this proposition exists. 


They are set ahead of time by brain processes, unconscious, that cannot display a subjective morality. If you are stuck with flight or fight mode pre-determined through evolution, I doubt you can make a moral process decision or say it is immoral to run away or immoral to fight, despite both being plausible options.
This is an essential misunderstanding of the resolution, that something objective has to be, "Chosen" in order for it to be contingent on a mind, however, this isn't true at all, as I pointed out the last rebuttal. Something can be a contingent fact on a mind without ever having chosen a single thing. 


You merely go fight, you merely run away. The morality pre-ordains that it should be okay to do this, because it is already set forth in this manner of speaking.
Set forth? Maybe, still doesn't make it objective, let's presume this case of determinism (as I have held the position in debate), this does not mean that this notion of morality could have EVER existed if minds did not exist, the reason why there are moral decisions is because of minds, as I have demonstrated in my own case in the negation of the resolution.


If I am coerced ahead of myself to be forced into doing something, then obviously this is not due to my personal thoughts. If something outside of my control pre-controlled my motions and movements, then I cannot be held morally responsible and be called to said to be immoral.
This does not mean that you are not being judged on a basis of objective morality. This has not proven anything regarded your position. 


As such, the genetic predisposition holds up and we must have the natural rights to live and liberty, if only to different degrees depending on the culture.
This is also a non-sequitur, let's take a look at what Pro really did here, state their conclusion, ignore my argumentation except for one line,  and go off into a tangent about determinism, how does this then suppose that his initial conclusion was correct? Again there is no logical follow-through that connects these thoughts. If something is to different degrees, then that thing isn't as likely objective, considering that Pro hasn't at all established this as a sequitur, this breaks their case entirely. 



Because Con cannot offer a good grounding to base upon why we should reject the natural rights of humanity, the pre-determined variables of the universe basically force us to already agree that we must value lives one way or another. So morality becomes objective rather than subjective. The resolution is upheld.
Not only did Pro not address all of my objections, and then claim to say their argument remains unchallenged, but ignore that their entire argument is fallacious in the first place, not at all addressing the logical fallacies they used in their original argumentation that I pointed out in R1. 

No, the resolution is not upheld.



CONSTRUCTIVE: Extend
Pro
Con keeps saying there is no fundamental basis outside our minds for the morality of what is right and wrong. But evolution is scientifically based, and as Con says, science is basically applied philosophy. When science says something is supposed to be one way, with all evidence pointing towards it, then it objectively exists. All the evidence for speed of light, nature of gravity, are all objective and beyond our mind. Similarly, the genetic nature of humanity is far beyond our own thought controls. As such, science which is the fact nature of the universe goes to show what is meant to be. Our minds are meant to value ourselves and culture, based on scientific patterns and analysis. Though science cannot prove anything with 100% certainty, it may prove most things beyond a reasonable doubt. As I have shown, no culture in human history has failed to value human life one way or another. No culture has failed to value our own culture that we belong to. Whatever things have universal traits and outcome must be objective. For example, no matter what I personally think, dropping a heavy bowling ball will lower by the force of gravity. So gravity exists beyond us, and is controlled by heavy/dense objects. Similarly, no matter what I think myself, I cannot control or outweigh the idea of human life being used within morality. Therefore morality is objective.
Round 4
Con
REBUTTALS:

Con keeps saying there is no fundamental basis outside our minds for the morality of what is right and wrong.
As far as this debate goes that is sort of true, Pro has certainly not provided any reasonable link between morality and evolution. Just that evolution has certain outcomes that help our species thrive. WHY is that moral? 

Recall: MoralityPrinciples concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior

Evolution would be the basis one has to establish here, yet it does not concern the right or the wrong, or the good and bad behavior. It connects what is true for a species to survive or the outcome of its evolution, but what Pro has not demonstrated is that that is equivalent to morality. 


But evolution is scientifically based, and as Con says, science is basically applied philosophy. When science says something is supposed to be one way, with all evidence pointing towards it, then it objectively exists.
Cool, I agree, evolution is an` objective fact - is it morally objective though? How does it inform us which principles are things we ought to do objectively? All of that relies on the assumption made by humans that what helps them survive is moral. Why is that the assumption? Why aren't we applying another objective fact like the laws of physics as moral? Because by your logic I can just argue that sense it is a cosmological voluntary fact that the sun will eventually turn supernova, or that the earth will eventually wipe off all humanity, that it's moral for that to happen. As I've said time and time again, there is no link.


All the evidence for speed of light, nature of gravity, are all objective and beyond our mind. Similarly, the genetic nature of humanity is far beyond our own thought controls.
Yes, but none of that is a connection to morality, and please don't go down the red-herring that is determinism in this instance. 


As such, science which is the fact nature of the universe goes to show what is meant to be. Our minds are meant to value ourselves and culture, based on scientific patterns and analysis.
Why? Why does science being objectively true, show that it can make objectively true rulings on morality? This is literally the same non-sequitur repeated over and over again, rephrasing what they have already said, yet I have given different examples of why their argument is a non-sequitur with each iteration, even though they same the exact same thing.


Though science cannot prove anything with 100% certainty, it may prove most things beyond a reasonable doubt. As I have shown, no culture in human history has failed to value human life one way or another.
That doesn't matter, how universal a value is in regards to humans, because that is all relying on evolution, and I have already explained why that's incorrect.  Not to mention he's putting doubt on their own case with some of this, not only that, but that is an assertion, that Pro must demonstrate before it is accepted validly. 


No culture has failed to value our own culture that we belong to.
What does this even mean? Is Pro claiming that no civilizations in the past have valued opposites things that we value today? Or things that are contingently contradicting? Perhaps I should bring up how in past cultures slavery was accepted as a moral good, and now it is seen as an unacceptable moral evil. And that's just one example out of hundreds. 


Whatever things have universal traits and outcome must be objective.
No, that is false, humans universally believe false things as infants, does that make it objective? Just because something is universally applicable that does not demonstrate it true, but this is also not even mentioning the fact that Pro has not demonstrated anything a universal applicator, that means that Pro must prove every single human as holding this trait, and Pro has not done this for all civilizations, much less all humans. 


For example, no matter what I personally think, dropping a heavy bowling ball will lower by the force of gravity. So gravity exists beyond us, and is controlled by heavy/dense objects. Similarly, no matter what I think myself, I cannot control or outweigh the idea of human life being used within morality. Therefore morality is objective.
This is nothing but a bald assertion that evolution is equivalent to moral truths, which I must stress, Pro has not demonstrated, Pro must demonstrate that as true before we could ever even consider evolution a moral standard objectively.


CONSTRUCTIVE: Pro has still refused to answer my argument and thus I extend my arguments

Back to Pro

Pro
Morality is the way that species ought to act, and what is correct for humanity. As I have shown that Evolution paves the clear path for humanity, determined through genes and ideas outside of one's control and thoughts, morality is objective.