Morality, like gravity, is a physical force in nature

For my final round I will provide an overview of why I have won this debate and then a line by line response to Pro"s final arguments. Overview: I have presented a case with multiple layers of independent arguments; if I win any one of these layers, I have won this debate. Pro has made the claim that morality is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, claiming that the bare fact of a physical law generates normative moral obligations. I have made the argument that bare facts about what is cannot generate normative claims about what ought to be. Pro offers no explanation for how bare facts can yield normative conclusions, so he has failed to show that the Constructal Law yields morality. If I win this argument, I have negated the Resolution. My 2a and 2b can be viewed as support for my argument about Hume"s Law. These arguments show how Pro must leverage external claims about morality to transform the Constructal Law into a moral law. If Pro relies on external value judgments, then morality is external to the Constructal Law and his argument fails. My 2) is also an independent argument that Pro"s case fails. Even if it were possible to bridge the is-ought gap, Pro"s case fails to do so. I have argued that the Constructal Law does not contain the value judgments Pro is making, meaning Pro has failed to show that the Law yields moral claims and instead has snuck in moral claims from elsewhere. I have also argued that the Constructal Law predicts different outcomes depending on what currents a system is subjected to. This means the Universal Rights Pro supports are not guaranteed outcomes of the Constructal Law, that in fact the Constructal Law offers no guarantee of moral outcomes. My 3) and 4) demonstrate how the conclusions generated by Pro"s theory of right and wrong yield absurd moral conclusions. It is not difficult to uncover scenarios where maximizing positive feedback is a non-moral matter like using good posture while swimming or scenarios where doing the right thing requires embracing negative feedback. These arguments show that Constructal Law does not yield a moral theory, it yields morally repulsive conclusions. Thus the resolution is defeated. My 5) shows that Pro has not offered a clear explanation of we get from the Constructal Law to Universal Rights. If Pro fails to construct a sound argument for Universal Rights as an outgrowth of the Cosntructal Law, then he has failed to meet his burden of showing that the Law yields morality. Pro makes wild leaps and assertions in his argument, including equating a broad understanding of "freedom of movement" to the complicated political concept of "Liberty." Pro never responded to my objections, he merely repeated his original argument in his final round. On this point alone I have shown that Pro fails to meet his BOP. Finally, even if you buy Pro"s case lock, stock, and barrel, he has failed to uphold the Resolution. Pro made a very specific claim about the role morality plays in nature- he claimed it was a physical force similar to gravity. I outlined that a physical force is very different from the broad pattern of phenomena described by the Constructal Law. The Resolution isn"t about whether morality is part of nature or can be seen in nature; it is that it is a physical force. If the Resolution were "evolution, like gravity, is a physical force," Pro would lose this debate. In the same way, Pro has lost this debate by failing to defend the totality of the Resolution. Line-by-Line: 1) Hume's Law Pro has never shown that my arguments are metaphysical in nature. Pro is making just as many claims about morality as I am; if my claims about the is-ought gap are metaphysical then so are his non-empirical claims that there is symmetry between "freedom of movement" and "liberty." My argument is not esoteric speculation or ideology- I am arguing that bare facts simply do not give justification for moral claims. The fact the I desire X doesn"t justify claims that I ought to pursue X. The fact that Constructal Law results in life that moves doesn"t justify claims that we ought to promote all movement. The fact that positive-feedback systems propagate does not mean we should promote any positive feedback system. The bottom line is this argument is a standard front-line response to Pro"s case and totally in line with the scope of the Resolution. This debate is about what morality is and my argument confronts this directly. Pro offered a number of new arguments in the final round, but I will briefly respond. Hume"s ethical theories are debated, but Pro"s interpretation of Hume doesn"t support the resolution. Hume says we gain awareness of good by sense-experience, suggesting that the good is something else. Hume doesn"t claim that such sense experience IS morality, only that it is the epistemological route to knowing it. Pro makes the radical claim that morality IS the positive feedback event, that it is a force in nature. 2a) Constructal Law is devoid of Value Judgments The Bejan makes a claim beyond the empirical support of the Constructal law doesn"t make the claim true. This is classic appeal to authority. If Einstein claimed Special Relativity meant genocide was ok he would be wrong, regardless of the fact he discovered that physical law. Pro is ignoring the substance of my argument that Bejan"s claim implies that all ideas which persist are good, including reprehensible ones like slavery and racism. Pro also ignores the heart of my original argument, which is that the Constructal Law is a broad formulation of how physical processes respond and evolve over time; the law talks in broad terms about "systems" and "currents." It only appears to take on moral tones when loaded terms are injected into it. 2b) Constructal Law does not necessitate moral outcomes I offered a huge amount of analysis in R3 about what the Constructal Law implies and empirical confirmation of the claim that the Law does not guarantee moral outcomes. Pro doesn"t even touch this analysis; on this alone I have refuted the Resolution. 3) Pro"s concept of "right" yields bizarre moral judgments Pro ignores my argument that his formulation of "right" yields conclusions that vary wildly depending on what "systems" and "currents" we are looking at. Again, his position suggests that sharks are more moral than dinosaurs because they survived extinction. Pro"s response about crack confuses me. He says shooting up is a moral event to the crack-head but relative to others it is immoral. Is he implying events can be both good and bad, or that morality is subjective? If this is the case then he has certainly disproved the resolution- natural forces are not subjective. 4) Pro fails to account for cases where moral behavior requires embracing negative feedback Pro again presents a number of new arguments. He seems to suggest that some negative feedback events are actually good because they fall within a greater positive feedback system over the long term. First, this directly contradicts his formulation of right and wrong- Pro is a moving target and offers no stable advocacy. Second, this renders his principle of right epistemologically opaque. Any negative-feedback event could be justified as just part of a larger positive feedback system. Also, individuals have no way of knowing if a negative-feedback act actually is a part of a positive feedback system; our hypothetical Nazi-fighters then have no justification to risk a negative feedback event. 5) Pro fails to justify his assertions of Universal Rights Pro is totally unresponsive to my original criticisms of his argument. 6) Pro has not proven a force of nature Pro is totally unresponsive to this argument; he only refers to his overview which does not address my point that the Constructal Law is not a physical force.