Morality/Right and Wrong

Rebuttal 1: "Furthermore, there is no evidence stating that humans are "programmed to behave" in any specific way." Firstly we are obviously programmed to behave in a certain way; take for example altruism, empathy, and compassion. Humans are programmed to have each of these three traits to some extent because these qualities are necessary in individuals for group societies to survive. These traits are not unique to humans and can be seen in creatures which most certainly do not have a complex socially enforced morality like termites, ants, and bees. We learn sympathy and self-sacrifice solely through evolution. In that sense we are of programmed (see http://webspace.ship.edu...) so that we may maximally survive. Rebuttal 2: "If a human being gets pleasure from inflicting pain on others, by the definition you have stated inflicting pain on others would be good." This is not at all what I said. What I said was that one should act so that the highest amount of pleasure is given to the greatest amount of people. Here I advocate for a societal Utilitarianism. Therefore causing pain to others just because it gives you a fleeting bit of pleasure would still be considered immoral because the amount of pain caused to others would almost obviously be greater than the amount of pleasure you have given yourself. I defined good as "giving the greatest amount of pleasure to the greatest amount of conscious beings." A moral person determines every action through a sort of hedonistic calculus and does not justify an act as good just because it gives one individual pleasure. You have assumed that the person in question would consider inflicting pain good just because it gave him pleasure. Most minds do not work like that. There is a great amount of people who I think would gain a lot of pleasure from rape yet they realize that this act is immoral because the amount of pleasure they might receive would be outweighed by the amount of pain the person they raped would receive. This is hedonistic calculus at work, it is going on in our minds all the time. Rebuttal 3: "A person can consider one thing good that another person considers to be bad. Therefore, neither good or bad is absolute." I have never argued that good and bad is absolute. I have argued that the moral axiom "Do good and avoid evil' is absolute. Notice how in my first argument I write it as 'do what you think is good' and 'avoid what you think is evil.' This is an axiom which is universal because it is an axiom that everyone should be following. Nobody should be doing what they think is evil and avoiding what they think is good. This is why the axiom is universal. You have confused the axiom by saying that it ceases to apply if somehow two people disagree on what good and evil is, but this is not the case. The axiom orders every human to do what they think is good and avoid what they think is evil because this is the exact definition of acting morally. Because morality is not objective in value it could be defined as 'Do what you think is good and avoid what you think is evil.' I can think of no situation in which this axiom ceases to apply and I believe I have successfully refuted my opponent's attempt to create a situation in which this axiom would not apply.