There is no objective basis for morality.

A note on my style before proceeding: My responses may involve addressing Con's arguments paragraph by paragraph, something even line by line. I realize that this approach may be tedious to read especially when I raise the same objection multiple times but I do it to 1) point out the problems I find in the arguments, and 2) out of concern that my failure to address a point, especially terms that can have different meanings and/or interpretations, may be construed as acceptance of that point or term. I apologize in advance if the reader finds this tedious and I welcome suggestions as to how to improve. Con's opening statement contains, ". .. enjoy a mutual moral exchange of ideas. The goal of a "moral" mutual exchange of ideas is when we both receive positive feedback from the learning experience during the exchange. " Con fails to provide an objective definition of "moral". Additionally, unless Con can demonstrate otherwise, it is purely Con's opinion that the goal of a moral (however that is defined) mutual exchange is to receive positive feedback. Further, the phrase "positive feedback" has not been objectively defined so it can mean anything anyone desires. At this point, I may enjoy a mutual moral exchange of ideas depending on what that means and I may not enjoy a mutual moral exchange of ideas; and I may be able to agree that the goal of a moral mutual exchange is to receive positive feedback depending on what that means, and I may not be able to agree. Con's next paragraph is nothing but a series of opinions which Con attempts to explain in the third paragraph. I am not a physicist and I do not have a strong enough background in the sciences to adequately judge whether Con's description of the Laws of Thermodynamics and Constructal Law in the third paragraph are correct or not, but I will accept them for the sake of this debate. While I will accept Con's descriptions, I do not accept Con's conclusions. Con states, "At the biological level once alive, "Life," must have the freedom ("Liberty" in the optimization relative to resistance), in "the pursuit (energy flow) of" survival; otherwise, there is no life. " The statements made here are vague and undefined. What does it mean that life must have freedom in the pursuit of survival otherwise there is no life? Is that freedom from all restrictions? Are some restrictions alright while others are not? Does life mean alive (not dead) or does it mean something else? If a person is convicted of a crime and placed in prison that person loses freedom but does not die, there is life. Perhaps, this statement means something like, "once something is alive it must fulfill its requirements for staying alive otherwise it will not be alive. " Since I can interpret this statement in different ways and show how in some cases it is not true, Con needs to clarify the statement before it can be meaningful. Con's next statement is, "Since we have life, survival is a form of positive feedback and a prerequisite for human "Happiness. " As mentioned earlier Con has not provided a definition for "positive feedback" so there is no way to know whether or not survival is a form of positive feedback. Is the "positive feedback" due to survival different than the "positive feedback" due to a learning experience? Once Con provides an objective definition then the statement can be re-evaluated. Con states that survival is a prerequisite for human happiness. Con needs to provide an objective definition of both "survival" and "happiness" in order for this statement to be evaluated. Does survival mean, in humans for example, only meeting the very basic needs that keep the body alive or does it mean something else? Does happiness mean the same thing to everyone or does it mean different things to different people? Con then provides links to youtube videos. While I thank Con for the links, I only accept the links as additional sources of information and not as demonstrative support for any of Con's positions. It is my opinion that the existence of youtube videos, even if the videos are entertaining and interesting, does not mean that those videos are correct nor do they provide objective evidence that one's positions or ideas are correct, otherwise I could make a youtube video stating that there is no objective basis for morality and link to it as support for my position. Con then states, "Now that we got that out of the way. " While I am not exactly sure what Con means by this statement, I infer that Con believes that the youtube videos and the earlier paragraphs provide absolute proof that there is an objective basis for morality and that this should be evident to any reader. Since I have asked questions concerning what I deem to be opinions and have pointed out vague, undefined terms in Con's arguments, nothing has been gotten out of the way. Of course if Con meant something different from what I have inferred, I will be happy to read it. Con's next paragraph states, 'Whether you knew it or not, you are trapped within the matrix of the Laws of Nature, the set of omnipotent "objective" Laws, the basic "phenomenon" found throughout Nature. In other words, for you to make tools, collect water, construct a shelter, you must morally follow those Laws in Nature to obtain positive feedback relative to accomplishing your goal. If you immorally go against those Laws you will failed in making tools, collecting water, and construct a shelter. " I am unclear as to what Con is attempting to say in this paragraph. What does "morally" mean in this case? Is the definition of moral different than the definition for a moral exchange of ideas? If I fail to collect water because there is a drought and there is no water to collect does that mean that I did not morally follow the laws of nature? Does it mean that I immorally went against the laws of nature therefore I failed to collect water even though there was no water to collect? If I fail to collect water because I slept all day does that mean I did not morally follow the laws of nature? The result, failure to collect water, is the same whether I slept all day or if there was a drought. Did I fail to collect the water because I immorally went against the laws of nature in both cases? What if I only collected some water but not as much as I intended to collect, does that mean that I was somewhat morally following the laws of nature? Con continues in the next paragraph with, "Now it comes down to that "man" in question. It was obvious that your goal was to kill that man. You morally followed the Laws of Nature to fulfill your goal. And as a result, you most likely receive positive feedback from your accomplished goal. " Con does not provide a conclusion: was killing the man on the beach moral or immoral? How does Con know that I "morally followed the Laws of Nature" when I killed the man? If I morally followed the Laws of Nature to fulfill my goal of killing the man, does that mean that if I had failed to kill the man then I was immorally following the Laws of Nature? If I accidently killed the man on the beach, does that mean that I morally followed the Laws of Nature? Con concludes with, "In conclusion, for life to survive (Pro's island example) or to pursue any goal, it must morally follow the Laws of Nature, those omnipotent "objectives, phenomenon," the basis found throughout Nature, "independent of individual thought;" otherwise, an immoral action will result in failure. " Again, I am unclear as to what Con is attempting to say in this paragraph. Per Con, for my life to survive or for me to pursue any goal, I need to morally follow the Laws of Nature. So if I pursue the goal of killing myself and I succeed then did I morally follow the Laws of Nature even though life did not survive? But if I pursue the goal of killing myself and I fail then did I immorally followed the Laws of Nature even though life survived? If I get a disease that kills me, did I immorally follow the Laws of Nature because the disease kills me? Did the man on the beach immorally follow the Laws of Nature because he failed to survive? Con has not demonstrated that there is an objective basis for morality. Rather, Con has provided undefined terms and opinions that the reader is expected to accept as true. I believe that I have demonstrated that Con's arguments so far are not objective but come from Con's individual belief, or opinion, or preference, or some other non-objective source.