There is no objective basis for morality.

Con states "...the only purpose of life is to survive and pass on our DNA, as has been scientifically proven." I will assume that it is possible, even though no evidence has been provided, that the only purpose of life is to survive (I will not include "pass on our DNA" because this would imply that an individual who is unable to or chooses not to pass on his or her DNA has no purpose and that is outside the scope of this debate). I will also assume that it is possible that "our brains are wired around this basic fact [to survive]" even though Con has not provided any support for this statement. Con's next paragraph states, in part, "The only reason to act in any way is to achieve something...I am defining a "net loss" as the opposite of achievement (which would be a net gain). Without a perceived gain in the future as a result of certain actions, individuals do not act upon those actions. Therefore, if you do not gain something from your effort, you have failed. This is objectively proven by my clarification of the self-centered mind." Con did not provide "clarification of the self-centered mind" as the only statement made about the mind was an unsupported statement that "our brains are wired around this basic fact [the only purpose of life is to survive]" and therefore nothing is proven. Regardless, this paragraph contradicted the arguments that Con made in Round 1. In Round 1 Con stated, "...if you gain nothing from killing someone, and that person loses everything, it is a net loss. Objectively, a net loss is bad. Actions should not be taken by any individual that do not benefit himself..." Since I took action and killed the man on the beach, I must have perceived a gain since, in Con's words from Round 2, "[w]ithout a perceived gain in the future as a result of certain actions, individuals do not act upon those actions." I acted therefore, per Con's reasoning, I must have perceived a gain. Con has defined "net loss" as the opposite of achievement. Killing the man on the beach cannot be a net loss as I did achieve something: I killed the man on the beach. So when I killed the man on the beach, I gained something from my effort, therefore I did not fail; I achieved something, therefore it was not a net loss; since there was no net loss the action was not immoral. Con stated that killing the man on the beach was immoral but then provided arguments that show that it was not immoral. Con's next paragraph states, in part, that "...the act of killing someone is an objectively unbalanced deal that relies on the initiation of force. This fact, as I will demonstrate, proves that it is objectively correct to support morality." Again I will state that it is Pro's position that there is no objective basis for morality and this debate is not about whether or not morality exits or if one should or should not support morality. Nowhere in this debate has it been argued by Pro that morality does not exist or that one should or should not support it. Con's next paragraph provides a definition of the initiation of force. I do not agree with this definition because, despite the link provided, it is nothing more than someone's opinion and I could just as easily define the initiation of force in a different way, put it on the web, link to it, and it would be just as valid as the definition provided. However, for this debate, I will accept the definition as written by Con but not the conclusion reached by Con. Con appears to be arguing that killing the man on the beach was an initiation of force and that the initiation of force is immoral. Con argues that the initiation of force is immoral because "Force prevents man from using his reason and therefore surviving." I have two problems with this statement. First, this statement is not true in all cases therefore it does not demonstrate objective morality. For example, if someone steals your wallet (theft) you do not cease to survive nor are you robbed of your reason; if someone says they are going to beat you (threats) you do not cease to survive nor are you incapable of using reason. Out of the examples quoted by Con, only murder would cause one to cease to survive and prevent the use of reason. My second problem with Con's statement and argument is that even if one were to accept and agree with Con's statement, it does nothing to demonstrate that there is an objective basis for morality since instead of concluding that the initiation of force is immoral one could just as easily conclude something like, "Since force prevents man from using his reason and therefore surviving I had better use my "self-centered mind" to ensure that no one initiates force against me but that does not mean that it is wrong for me to initiate force against someone else." The argument that the initiation of force is immoral is not objective (independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers: having reality independent of the mind) it is simply Con's opinion. Con continues with: "If human beings were to forget about morality, objectively things would become harder for everyone. I know. That sounds like a subjective statement. But it is not, death is objectively bad because the only reason in living is to enjoy life, and death makes it, well, harder, to enjoy life." First, it is Pro's position that there is no objective basis for morality and this debate is not about whether or not one should forget about morality. Nowhere in this debate has it been argued by Pro that one should forget about morality. Second, the statement contradicts this statement that Con made three paragraphs earlier: "...the fact that the only purpose of life is to survive and pass on our DNA..." Which is it? Is the only purpose of life to survive or is the only reason for living is to enjoy life? In the next paragraph, Con argues that a human life is self-owned concluding with "If I am responsible for my own life, preserving my life, enjoying my life, and passing on my DNA, and I retain full control of my body, mind, and reason, then I retain ownership over my life." Here Con combines the two "only" reasons for living to demonstrate that one retains ownership over one's life. I am willing to accept this, for the sake of this debate, but I do not accept Con's conclusion of, "And by living reasonably, I am compelled not to kill or steal or vandalize, because doing so would mean that I would want that to happen to me. And because nobody wants to be killed or have their possessions stolen or vandalized, nobody reasonably kills, as it would violate the laws of reason." Con interjects new terms, "living reasonably" and "the laws of reason", into the argument without providing any context or definition. If the only reason for living is survival and/or enjoying life, then wouldn't "living reasonably" mean surviving and/or enjoying life? Further, how is the statement "I am compelled not to kill or steal or vandalize, because doing so would mean that I would want that to happen to me" anything but Con's opinion? Con needs to provide an objective (independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers: having reality independent of the mind) basis for this statement as I can understand the part about not wanting to have something done to me (I do not want anyone to kill me) but I do not understand the logical leap that gets to something like "I had better not kill the man on the beach because if I do it means that I want to be killed." I would argue that another equally valid conclusion could be, "Since I do not want someone to kill me I had better take care and see to it that no one kills me but that does not mean that it is wrong for me to kill someone else." And again, the statement contradicts this statement from Con in Round 1: "...where killing someone is your only means of surviving, it is not immoral." But if I kill someone, even if it is my only means of surviving, according to Con it means that I want someone to kill me and that violates the laws of reason. So now Con attempts to support the argument that there is an objective basis for morality with: if you kill someone because it is your only means of surviving it is not immoral, but killing someone because it is your only means of surviving violates the laws of reason and is immoral. In the next paragraph, Con states, "Pro said that war and genocide and general human history proves that we do act without regard to morality." This is not correct; I never wrote this. In Round 1, Con wrote, "Without this idea [human life is of the most importance]... we would act like animals, killing each other for territory and access to limited natural resources; instead, we have accepted the previous idea of morality, and thus have engaged in civilized competition..." I pointed out that Con's argument for an objective basis for morality based on this statement collapses as people do fight and kill each other for territory and natural resources as demonstrated by history. I never stated that war and genocide and general human history prove that human act without regard to morality. The rest of Con's paragraph is irrelevant as Con is attempting to counter an argument that I never made. Con's arguments have not demonstrated that there is an objective basis for morality. I have shown that not only do some of Con's arguments contradict some of Con's other arguments but I have shown that different and equally valid conclusions can be derived from Con's arguments demonstrating that the arguments are not objective. Con has failed to demonstrate that there is an objective basis for morality and it is still Pro's position that there is not an objective basis for morality; that judging or labeling an action as either moral or immoral is the result of individual belief, or opinion, or preference, or some other non-objective source.