There is no objective basis for morality.

You are welcome Pro for finding my participation in this debate “enjoyable and enlightening,” fulfilling my goal of a moral mutual exchange of ideas, stated in my first paragraph in Round 1. And in addition, I too agree with Pro hoping that “everyone reading also gained something from this exchange.”In our modern age, the scientific method has become inseparable from human endeavor. In order to show the “Objective Basis for Morality” I had to cover some of the latest scientific work on the subject, and not take a position on the typical traditional metaphysical argument. I presented references to this latest scientific work and discovery on the “Objective Basis for Morality.” The science I referenced, should have answered all of Pro's questions, indirectly, at least. But I had to take issue with Pro's assertion on how I picked “a particular definition out of a particular dictionary” to support the science I made reference to. Indeed, that was too rich! Pro stated in Round 5 the following:“I [Pro] have posed the question of "Why is one moral when one follows a set of rules and immoral when one does not follow a set of rules?" ... Con has not even acknowledged this question. Unless Con can provide an objective answer to this question, Con fails to establish a connection between the objective Laws of Nature and morality ...”The points I made, Pro missed the answer to his question, and in saying that, I apologize. I will attempt to address Pro's question more directly, “Why is one moral when one follows a set of rules and immoral when one does not follow a set of rules?"Each one of us has our own perception, or belief, in a code of ethics, “a set of rules.” When interfacing with another person, using our “rules,” in the pursuit of a mutual positive event in life, freedom, happiness, the event is said to be moral, when the event turns negative as in distress, anger, tyranny, the threat of survival it becomes immoral. Depending on the outcome, the “rules” may evolve, via trial and error, to enhance one's code of ethics in the “objective” natural drive for a positive civil response via the phenomena known as Morality. After the "set of rules” have been tested or refined to promote a moral event, and to answer Pro's question; then “one is moral when one follows a set of rules and immoral when one does not follow a set of rules,” with the moral “objective” to embrace and enhance a civil relationship. The code of ethics, those “set of rules,” is the evolutionary nature for the “objective” to morally embrace and enhance a civil society. These “set of rules” are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing a culture. A moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to those “set of rules,” going with the social flow minimizing civil resistance (Constructal Law). The individual in a civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested “set of rules.” The evidence of morality in a wide range of independently developed cultures across isolated human tribes empirically supports the “Objective Basis for Morality” as the agent of bringing life together in social group formation. This moral “objective” is the empirical result for the diversity of traditions, values, beliefs, economics, and languages that formed independent civil societies found throughout the world today and throughout recorded history. On a similar note, all isolated independently developed cultures maintains the same set of elements: tradition, value, belief, economic, and language, the resulting fingerprint of Morality. However, in Round 1 Pro defined an environment where his comfort zone was one of an extreme introversion and isolation void of any social organization living on an island. So his “set of rules” exclusively interface with nature not to include another and since Pro is the only one therefore, “one is moral when one follows a set of rules and immoral when one does not follow a set of rules.” Pro's “set of rules” is one with nature, and therefore, maintains a subset of the “objective” Laws of Nature for Pro to morally pursue his goals of “gathering and/or hunting food, … collecting and storing fresh water, … construct shelter, … provide luxuries and means of entertainment;” hence, “Happiness.” Relative to Pro's “set of rules,” exclusively being a subset of the “objective” Laws of Nature void of social interaction, he kills a castaway that came ashore. His “set of rules” maintains that nature is neither cruel nor kind, just indifferent. Depending on the outcome, that is, if Pro failed in any of his pursuits with nature, the “rules” may evolve, via trial and error, to enhance Pro's “set of rules” in the “objective” natural drive for positive feedback with nature by understanding other Laws in Nature, via the phenomena known as Morality. That is, for the scientific method to work (aka understanding other Laws in Nature), one must morally accept and follow the results from trial and error to progressively go forward in the evolution of those "set of rules." I hope this answer Pro's question and highlights both the “Objective” nature of Morality, and the subjective nature of a code of ethics, those “set of rules.” The latest science of the Constructal Law, life's Unalienable Rights, and the “Objective Basis for Morality” as seen through the prism of science, I invite those who are interested to step outside the traditional metaphysical box, as I did with this debate, and join the discussion over the universal presence of this latest science throughout the symphony of life. We can develop a deeper understanding of social, economic, technological evolution, opening many new doors, by shifting our focus from metaphysical speculation to physical science, where empirical observations exist supporting the “Objective Basis for Morality.”And in closing, I thank Pro for bringing an important subject to the debating floor, and I wish Pro a long, healthy and prosperous “Life,” having ample freedom (“Liberty”), in the moral “pursuit of Happiness.” Whether, Pro lives on an island, or not.