Objectivism fails to describe an adequate meta-ethical answer for the is-ought problem.

[ Auxiliary Issues ] Pro begins by clarifying that there are various moral systems which have an objective moral standard, and gives Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics as examples. The problem is that this is irrelevant to the debate. It has absolutely no bearing whether other standards of morality are objective or subjective. My position in the debate is to illustrate how objectivism provides an adequate meta-ethical answer to the is-ought problem. It doesn't matter if other beliefs systems do as well; the point here is that objectivism does. [ Criticisms ] 1) Existence as the Fundamental Value Choice Pro clarifies his position that Rand's reasoning of choosing life or death as a suitable justification for Objectivism is flawed. One critic said the same exact thing as Pro -- If a living organism's actions serve someone else's good rather than their own, they will die, and therefore the proper beneficiary of one's actions is themselves. This is BS. I don't mind people criticizing Rand's philosophy; however, it would be beneficial if the nay-sayer had actually read Rand's work. If he had, then he would know that Rand is not speaking literally here. This is the most common misinterpretation of Rand which is easily accessible to anyone who knows how to utilize a search engine. However, these criticisms are ridiculously off base. If you were to actually read Rand instead of just Googling criticisms of objectivism, you'll see that these criticisms are ENTIRELY misguided and gross misrepresentations of her philosophy. Her argument is that the purpose of one's life is to perpetuate their values. If you are a Utilitarian but you aren't alive to utility yourself, or act to increase or ensure the utility of others, then your goal is affected and for naught. Her message is that you should live your life to further your goals (values). A dead nationalist can't triumph a nation. However, if you must die to further your goals/actions, then so be it. For instance, if I were a parent and forced to either save my life or my child's life, and I chose to save my child's life instead, that would be okay to Rand even though the specific action chose death over life. In actuality, I was furthering my value system by saving my child's life, and thus that action was acceptable. Again, this should be the goal of your life according to Objectivism so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Moving on, my opponent's argument regarding the mantis is again completely flawed. He says that if they cherished their lives as the ULTIMATE value, then they wouldn't mate to procreate to avoid being possibly killed. However, again Pro misses the entire point of Rand's argument. As I've stated many times already, your life is supposed to further your values which is why it is of ultimate importance. Clearly the mantis have a desire to procreate and thus are willing to put their lives in jeopardy. Procreating here is their value and their lives are a means to achieve that goal or value. Their lives are of utmost importance because it is their means of achieving their goals... even through death. This is a very simple concept to understand. If procreating is my ultimate desire, but I might have to sacrifice my life in order to do it, then isn't my life of the most important value here? Pro fails to adequately defend this point against Objectivism at all. Similarly, introducing the example of mating tigers only continues to weaken Pro's argument. He says, "Propagating your future generations mostly, if not always, has negative effects on your own survival. Just refer to my example of animals who mate and get pregnant, with knowledge that their partner will likely leave them." Well, obviously the bit about negatively impacting your own survival has been discussed at length by myself, so this is a moot point. Once again: The purpose of life according to Objectivism is to further your own values. You do that by being ALIVE which is why it is of utmost importance. And in cases where you must die to further your values, giving your LIFE allows you to do that, so it is still of utmost importance. Evolution is not an argument against this philosophy; it simply demonstrates that animals often have a strong desire or value to procreate. They have to be alive - or give their life - in order to do that. Period. Additionally, I fail to see how male tigers leaving female tigers once they're pregnant has absolutely anything to do with anything regarding this topic. Now, Pro's attack on this philosophy is riddled in fallacies. For instance, "Objectivists state that since one would need life to have values, then life must be the foundation for value - the ultimate value one could say. Even if we are to accept this reasoning (which is ludicrous in itself)..." Hold on, Mr. Straw Man :) Why exactly is that ludicrous? You'll notice that Pro hasn't explained how or why that it is, but merely that it is, and as such is trying to sway the reader against Objectivism in a fallacious way. Furthermore, my opponent continues to note that rationality should be regarded as the ultimate value instead of life. Clearly my response to this is an obvious one: You need to be ALIVE in order to be RATIONAL, so why wouldn't life be the ultimate value? I'll take it a step further. The philosophical definition of rationality is as follows: The key method used to analyze the data gathered through systematically gathered observations; A decision or situation is often called rational if it is in some sense optimal [1]. Now suppose you accept the concept of objective morality. Do you have to be alive in order to determine what is ethical? Yes. Do you need to be rational? Sure, but people use different methods of rationality to deduce what is or isn't the moral choice, through means of Objectivism, Utalitarianism, etc. Thus one can make a RATIONAL choice regarding morality but it can still be the wrong choice, and as such, the method of rationality in general cannot be definite quality of choosing the correct ethical answer. However, being alive IS a definite necessary quality, and as such, I have proven that life is the ultimate value over rationality. I have won this point. 2) Life or Death as the Fundamental Value Choice Pro begins his attack on point 2 by again misinterpreting Rand's philosophy. Since I have already corrected the flaw in critic's attacks, I'll move on to explaining why his example is wrong. Utilitarianism posits that moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility. If one acted contrary to this value, it would mean that their actions did not contribute to the overall good of society and there would be no way to use that as an argument FOR utilitarianism itself, so Pro's example is completely non-sensical. Now, this doesn't apply to objectivism because the goal of objectivism is to live to further your own values. If you act contrary to that, you are choosing a little death either in the death of your values or possibly even your actual life. This is bad and as such can be used as an argument for why you should support objectivism. 3) Reason and Objectivist Ethics Pro writes, "For rapists and sadists, their happiness very well depends on the expense of others." First, too bad for them. What they do is not what they ought to do... and isn't that the purpose of this debate? Second, a murderer or rapist is mentally ill. Objectivism upholds RATIONAL egoism - not just doing whatever it is that you want. [ Conclusion ] I'm out of characters for now and will surely expand in the final round, but the bottom line is that objectivism DOES provide an adequate solution to the is-ought problem. Even if you disagree with the result doesn't mean that it doesn't provide one. Pro's own conclusion has nothing to do with the resolution at hand. References: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...