Science can determine human values.

Premise OneCon states that objective moral values would exist even if it conscious creatures did not. This is true, as objective moral values are independent of human (or any conscious beings) opinion. Two and two would always equal four whether there is anyone to prove it. Con's statement, though true, is a red herring. We are not debating the existence of objective moral values if no conscious entities exist. We are debating the meaning and usefulness of objective moral values, or moraly at all, absent of any conscious entity. My justification of Premise One in R3 states 'If every conscious creature were to vanish, then morality would become meaningless.' I never said that it wouldn't exist, just that it would lack any meaning. This claim is obvious, as nobody would argue that a nebulae is concerned with the euthyphro dillehma.The justification one can provide for why cutting down trees does not have to relate to human flourishing. Con states that the reasoning has nothing to do with human flourishing, but this in not relevant. In order for Premise One to be true, it must be reducable to the well-being of conscious creatures, not necessarily human flourishing. Con changed the terms of my argument.It does not matter if the person does not expressively state a reason that relates to well-being. My premise states that it has to be reducible to well-being. That is, we can reduce that moral claim to something relating to well-being. It does not mean that the person has to say something relating to well-being. If a person argued we should preserve the earth just for the sake of preserving the earth, then it is reducible to well-being, even if they do not say so. As I pointed out, preserving the earth relates to the well-being of conscious creatures. Thus, preserving the earth is reducible to well-being, and Premise One remains true.Con misunderstands me. I have not argued that we have to come to all conclusions about moral questions scientifically. I don't, for instance, think that I will consult a scientist on whether I should buy my daughter a tropical fish for her birthday. I am only arguing that the seperation between morality and science is not valid.Premise TwoThe fact/value distinction is not logical. Values are morals, and morals are just a type of fact about the way things should be. Con and I both believe in objective moral values, so we both believe that there are objective rights and wrongs. These right and wrong statements are just facts about what is right and wrong. From this, I believe that the distinction between facts and values is like trying to make a distinction between A and A, or blue and blue.Premise ThreeI should clarify the metaphor to make this debate easier, since the point I needed to make with it has already been made. Healthy food is a representation of the myriad of action and ideas that improve the well-being of conscious creatures. Poison is a representation of all the actions and ideas that can harm the well-being of conscious creatures.If improving (or maximizing) well-being is moral, then science can not only inform moral decisions, but tell us what is moral. I believe that is a logical result of ackwnowledging well-being as the basis of morality. We have many cases where science can do more than inform moral decisions, but make them.Of course, as I have said, I do not believe that science can decide every moral question. Otherwise, the resolution would state 'Science determines human values'. It does not state this. There are moral questions that we can only answer purely through philosophical, rather than scientific, reasoning. An admission of this fact does not negate the resolution.Possible Round 5 SuggestionI believe that R5 could be made far more interesting if we simply answer questions. I propose that in R4, we both ask each other three questions that will be answered in R5 of the debate. R5 will be devoted entirely to answering those questions. If Con does not wish to accept, then we will continue on with a five-round debate. If he wishes to accept, then I ask him to make his questions in R4.1: You are recognized as a defender of Christianity on debate.org. In your view, what is the role of god in objective moral value?2: Are there any methods of ethical naturalism that you would accept?3: If you were to stop believing in god, would you become a moral relativist, or some form of moral nihilist?With that, I turn things over to Con.