DA Tournament: The Most Accurate Meta-Ethical Theory. Moral Realism (Pro) vs Moral Relativism (Con)

Thanks Con Moral Relativism Rebuttals Existential Nihilism Con drops the ball here, he has yet to support his assumption of lack of purpose and meaning. Remember, this is Con’s positive case here, and so this is a key assumption of Con, it simply is not sufficient to declare it false by fiat. Moreover, essentialism has ties to metaphysics, where an object’s essence comes before it’s existence. Take a bottle for example, a bottle has an end (it stores liquid), which is its design purpose, moreover there is the process of designing it, manufacturing it, where all the molecules of its material composition came from etc. All of these compose any object’s essence, it in summary is an attribute by which something is itself, and without it, it isn’t. Thus to deny anything’s essence is to deny the law of identity (A=A), which is absurd. Once the essence is place, only then is it made actual, and thus possesses existence. This also has strong ties with the Artistotelian laws of causality, where any action has a material cause, efficient cause, formal cause and a final cause. All four of these causes are required for anything to happen, or to be made actual. Materials are required to build the object, a carpenter (efficient cause) is required to do the action, and a design, or image (formal cause) is required to give form, and a final cause is the direction, or purpose. Thus, my postulate is that all things have an essence, and all actions have a final cause. We have good reasons to believe both are true. For the latter for example, all actions within the physical world are directed towards their effects. For example, pressing the boil button on your kettle invariably leads to boiling water, this is repeatable over and over. It is metaphysically possible for the button on your kettle to lead to vastly different results, such as the water freexing, or vanishing, or venting through the kettle walls, etc. Instead, we find that the effects are directed to a conclusion (final causality). The world works specifically and determinably. This is telos, which is included within a creation’s essence. Argument for Biological Telos I will give the formulation, then the justification: P1) All inanimate things that possess telos, does with external purpose P2) Human biology is an inanimate thing that possess telos C) Human biology possesses telos with external purpose Defence of P1 This can be justified as follows: "every unconscious teleology, every case of something being for something without awareness of what it"s for, is dependent on some conscious teleology, on some mind which is aware what that thing is for" All non-intelligent things so things blindly. It is one thing to see, but another to look. It is one thing to hear, and another to listen. For an object to possess telos, or a directed “end”, then it clearly follows that it does so at the direction of something with intentionality. If intentionality is present, then de facto, external purpose is present as well.[1] Defence of P2 This literally could not be any more obvious. The heart contracts, to fulfil a final cause, or “end” for circulating blood around the body. The kidney’s filter blood for the end of removing toxins. Our lung’s inhale and exhale in order to provide oxygen to the rest of the body, etc. etc. etc. Essentially all parts of the human body are fulfilling ends of their own, and thus possess telos. They aren’t just being directed to random ends either, but very specific ends directed at maintaining the body’s overall health. Conclusion This leads to the conclusion that existential nihilism is quite frankly, false. Thus Cpon’s alleged foundation in existential nihilism crashes. Moreover, it lends significant strength to moral realism, since more objective facts regarding values, purpose and ultimate truths are apparent. Moral Sense I was being modest when I said “easily arguable”, it’s in fact impossible to argue it is not, since once again, it is incorrigible. The fact that you see black and white in front of you is not questionable, even if the fact that it’s a computer screen is. Similarly, your moral sense of right and wrong when you choose to partake in actions is not questionable. This argument is subjective, yes, but like cogito ergo sum, the conclusion is necessarily true for each person. Con conflates the facts that the moral sense purports to, and the moral sense itself despite my repeated clarification. Yes, I can grant that the moral sense doesn’t necessarily give perfectly correct answers, similarly your visions may be hallucinations. But that is beside the point, it is an almost indisputable fact that the vision senses do report about something that is objective (physical reality), by extension, I have argued that the moral sense also reports for similar reasons. It would be special pleading to argue otherwise, and the modus propandi is on Con to show otherwise, as he is essentially attacking the very foundation of our sanity by challenging directly mentally accessible contents (such as sound, sight, tough, etc.) Evolution cannot say anything about morality except how we experience and bias certain stimuli Con again doesn’t draw the distinction between morality evolving, and ability to perceive morality is evolving. Again, the data fits both hypothesis equally here. Light doesn’t “evolve”, our ability to see light evolves. Con isn’t going to get anywhere with his evolution arguments here. Con missed the point with my argument from math. In fact Con affirms himself that math is not emergent by arguing it isn’t ontological. Thus Con defeats himself on this point! Pro makes some irrelevant points regarding contingence on the exisxtance of human beings… it’s simply irrelevant to my reducio argument. Thus, if math is not emergent, then either my P1 must be false (which is predicated on Con’s line of reasoning, thus that is false too) or evolution is false. I will allow Con to take his pick of which noose to hang himself from. Evolution & Morality I never made the claim that evolution is the source of objective morals though, thus evolution is rather irrelevant to my moral realism case. It is Con that is claiming that evolution gives rise to morals. Thus is falls foul of the is/ought problem. Con commit’s a tu quoque fallacy here (by accusing me of the same problem) which even if valid doesn’t escape the fact that is still undermines his case. Egoism Con ignores my argument from altruism, and I am left flaggerghasted by Con’s assertion: “This is how a society such as Nazi Germany was able to function without internally succumbing to supposed objective evils.” Egoism is literally the most self-contradictory moral framework one could possibly propose, since everyone inherently have contradicting self-interests, and there is simply no way to resolve these conflicts because neither can be right according to Con’s arguments. Thus, conflicts are unresolvable. The very fact that they are and the fact that it is clearly not within society’s self-interest to adopt a Nazi regime which allegedly seeks to maximise self-interest, is a black and white demonstration of its internal inconsistency. Summary Out of space, and I need to sleep. Will defend my case in closing. References 1. http://ftp.colloquium.co.uk...