Science can determine human values.

Premise OneOur moral obligations don’t end with conscious entities. Arguments can be, and have been, made about our responsibilities to nature, and other non-conscious entities. Morality is objective and like the rules of logic, would not simply vanish if there were no conscious entities to discover them or abide by them.When people make arguments against cutting down trees and similar things, while some believe it is to help human flourishing (after all, we need trees and plants to produce oxygen and absorb carbon dioxide), many people argue against it because they believe that Earth needs to be preserved. This has nothing to do with human flourishing but everything to do with how the Earth is and should be kept.The reason I said what I did is because as rational, moral agents we have a responsibility to act morally. Everything we do relates to our well-being, if not physically then metaphysically. However, as I have shown our obligations do not necessarily end with conscious beings. Besides which, I have shown that this is not something that can be arrived at scientifically, as Pro alleges. This must be arrived at philosophically.Premise TwoThe is-ought gap is not false. The problem is that you can’t get a prescriptive statement (the way things ought to be) from a descriptive statement (the way things are). That’s because there is a missing premise, so the argument is invalid. For example,P1) Homosexuality occurs in nature (animals engage in the practice).C) Therefore, humans are justified in engaging in homosexuality.This doesn’t follow at all. Homosexuality may be justified for humans, but if it is it’s not because it occurs in nature. Even if homosexuality didn’t occur in nature, it may still be justified. And even though it occurs in nature, it may not be justified. Murder and theft also occur in nature, but humans are not justified in those behaviors. So the argument is invalid. You would need a second premise to get from homosexuality occurs in nature to humans are justified in engaging in the behavior. Something like this:P1) Homosexuality occurs in nature.P2) Whatever occurs in nature is justifiable for humans.C) Therefore, humans are justified in engaging in homosexuality.Now the argument is valid, but it’s unsound (as not everything that occurs in nature is justifiable for humans to engage in).Let’s look at pro’s example.P1) The fastest way from A to B is a straight line.C) Therefore, you ought to travel in a straight line.This argument is invalid. The conclusion doesn’t follow from its premise. What if you care more about scenery than arriving at your destination quickly? Then it seems that you should not travel in a straight line. You should travel in a circuitous route because it offers a better view. This is why the is-ought gap is a genuine problem for an argument.Premise ThreePro argues that there is a difference between food and poison. Granted. But just because poison exists doesn’t tell us that we shouldn’t consume the poison. We need to be aware of what poison is, then make a philosophical argument for why we should not consume the poison or give the poison to someone else. The existence of poison itself tells us nothing about whether or not we should consume it. Science alone can’t tell us this. It can only inform morality, it can’t dictate it.ConclusionPoint taken on the conclusion.In ConclusionPro’s resolution has been negated. Science can’t determine human values, it can only give us relevant information that we need to determine human values, which must be arrived at philosophically. He even concedes as much in the last round. He stated, “This is why I use a mix of scientific and philosophical argumentation.” This shows that you can’t arrive at human values scientifically. You must use philosophical reasoning to dictate human values.Pro has not argued that philosophy is not valid. However, the resolution was that science can determine human values. Science can not, you must use philosophical reasoning to arrive at human values.I have shown that Pro’s resolution has been negated. I look forward to our next round.