Morality > Nature

Moral ContradictionsThe Pro brings up an interesting point in that the idea of morals being created by nature contradicts itself. When we see morality saying one thing, and yet nature exhibiting acts that seem to contradict these morals, how can nature have any influence over morality? It's important to realize two things: first, the relationship between nature and our morality that I've discussed doesn't necessarily mean that our morals are created from nature. The point is that the moral properties we base our claims of right and wrong on are either derived from objective or subjective moral properties. Essentially, either nature or human preference plays a role in shaping our moral principles, but none of this removes the hand that direct human reasoning plays in creating moral theory. None of this suggests that something like Utilitarianism comes from the trees. Second, it's easy to claim that "basic morality and nature contradicts each other so much", but once again let's now jump to hasty generalizations. Again, much of what the Pro claims about nature can be said tenfold for humanity. Regardless of whether morality is derived from objective or subjective properties, we as a species aren't exactly making nature or our own existence a better place. What plant has turned the science of atomic fission into a nuclear weapon? What animal has slaughtered countless millions just because of physiological differences? How can it be that nature itself is falling out of control, when humanity is changing the very shape of the world (both positively and negatively) just by our very existence? Closing RemarksTwo points are worth concluding on. First, within the context of this debate I argue that the Pro has not satisfied his burden for his primary claim that "morality is greater than nature". On my first attack about the conditions of this kind of statement, the Pro offered definitions of nature and morality, as well as a condradiction to "nature creating morals", but as I've demonstrated, neither of these rubbutals bring the clarity required as to whether morality isn't, in some way, influenced by real moral properties that exist in nature. Furthermore, the Pro admits that there is a "dark possibility that nature is right", which shows that even the Pro can't rule out that nature has some influence over morality. .. even if it's a negative influence in the Pro's eyes. Even the Pro recognizee that humans stem from nature. Given that we can't even determine with certainty what influence nature has over morality, a statement like "morality is greater than nature" can't adequately be addressed, which leaves the Pro's burden unfufilled. Furthermore, my challenges against a "slippery" morality created from human preference also remains. Even the Pro agreed that our morality (by not being perfect) is often disputed and changed. Many questions go unanswered. The Pro speaks of the next step in turn our world into a new one, but how can our morality be a guide to this Utopian universe if morality itself is only relative and never consistent? How do we choose which moral or cultural beliefs are the correct moral codes to lead us into this new era? This leads me to my second and final point: too many ambiguities still exist to even begin to consider morality as a guide of fix nature. Whether nature needs this fixing is questionable itself. Whether humanity is qualified to fix nature is also questionable. Most importantly, our understanding and concept of morality is still too diverse to use as an ideal model to fix nature. Personally, I'd argue that humanity has a lot more to learn from nature than vice versa, but the point remains: clarity on these issues is required before the Pro has any hope of satisfying the burden necessary to claim morality is greater than nature. To summarize, I argue that the Pro hasn't met the challenge of showing that "morality > nature" is in fact a statement that can be considered without the knowledge of whether morality and nature are mutually independent (see my logic in round one for details). Second, the Pro hasn't addressed the issues I set forth in regards to the Pro's final two claims (1. nature is immoral & 2. humans ought to fix nature) if A. morality is influenced by natural moral properties and B. morality is influenced by subjective moral properties. These issues include how nature can be immoral if our notions of morality are influenced by nature, and how humans can "fix" nature if morals are in constant flux based on human perception. Regardless of whether nature requires fixing, these points establish the case for a vote for Con. Thank you to my opponent for a great debate! Happy New Years!