Objective Moral Judgements can be made in Moral Nihilism

Introduction Thank you for your response. My opponent does not need to affirm objective moral egoism; he needs to affirm the resolution. What I am arguing is that my opponent’s effort to affirm the resolution has, in certain cases, caused him to argue in favor of objective moral egoism which contradicts the notion of moral nihilism. Whether Bias Can be Objective On the contrary, it is logically absurd for bias to be objective, for objectivity by definition lacks bias. Therefore bias cannot be objective. The statement “I do not necessarily want what I want” is sound in the sense that at one point I could like apples but at another point not like apples. If I necessarily wanted apples, there could never be a time where I didn’t want apples. However since there could be a time where I didn’t want apples (say I was sick), then it is not necessary that I want what I want. Now since I have shown that the statement “I do not necessarily want what I want” is not self-contradicting, the antithesis is not necessarily true, and therefore the statement “I necessarily want what I want” is not affirmed. There is also another way to view the statement “I do not necessarily want what I want.” If during circumstances X I desire Y, then it is necessary that I desire Y during circumstances X, lest there be a contradiction. Therefore, it is necessary to want what I want (during circumstances X specifically). However, although this is constantly true since circumstances X must yield desire Y, it is not objectively true since it still relies on the bias of the individual that desires Y. It is important to note that I do not argue against moral egoism, for both of my responses yield that the individual acts (and should act) within their self interest; it is simply the acting upon an individual’s self interest that necessarily cannot be objective since self interest in of itself exists within bias. Moral Egoism Here Pro subscribes to the kind of gibberish I was arguing against last round. Once again, Pro asserts that moral facts based on the self interest of individuals are unbiased and impartial, yet gives no proper explanation on how this is. At first thought it certainly wouldn’t appear so, for something that is subjective upon an individual or community cannot be unbiased or impartial in respect to the fact that such definitions are necessarily opposed to one another. Math Analogies On the contrary, 10x + 9 = Y is subjective and cannot yield objective answers. In respect to the fact that variable X can be changed and therefore yield different answers, the equation is subjective. It can yield true statements, but not objective statements since the answer to the equation is changeable and depends on the variable used. It is correct that once you have settled for certain value X, you must necessarily be granted a true answer. However, this answer is not objective, since the answer depends on the value of variable X within the equation. Burden of Proof As Pro has the full BOP, he must prove beyond doubt that objective moral judgments can be made in moral nihilism. At the very least, I have called into doubt whether such moral judgments are objective or not, and therefore Pro cannot win this debate. Conclusion Sorry Pro if this debate was not as substantial as you would have like it to be. I had a fun time and I hope you did too. This debate certainly brought into question certain points I had never considered before. May the better debater win.