Atheistic Objective Morality

Thanks MagicAintReal.Moral Nihilism I’ll try to make a few of my points clearer, defend them and hope that the affirming of these points will lead on to the refuting the remainder of the points, thus negating my opponent’s burden - an example would be that if I managed to prove that my opponent’s definition of morality is not objective, then the example regarding euthanasia will also be negated since my opponent’s definition is not objective, I wouldn’t need to directly refute this point of contention since I would have refuted a more significant point to which the euthanasia point is contingent on. My opponent begins by making a misconception. I stated that his standard is subjective and he responded by saying that there is nothing subjective about homeostasis. This is not what I meant. I meant that many people would disagree that homeostasis is a valid way of measuring morality objectively. Yes, homeostasis can factually measure SUFFERING but my opponent fails to justify why suffering is the valid unit of measurement for morality. Which brings me back to the point of metaethics and normative ethics. This is normative ethical and therefore, by definition, subjective (when it isn’t justified with a metaethical framework). This is because there are many, many different normative ethical systems of morality [1]. There is no way of determining which one is correct without a metaethical framework which defines what morality actually is with objective justification, thus proving it to be preferable to other metaethical systems of morality. My opponent states, “If we don't consider human well being when speaking of moral right and wrong, what are we even talking about?” This is subjective and once again brings me back to another part of my case where I stated different normative ethical ways that people measure morality. My opponent believes that we should be considering human well being. A utilitarian would value happiness. A believer in intellectualism would believe that the action that produces the most knowledge is the most moral action. Different people believe different things. You SUBJECTIVELY believe that suffering should be used to measure morality but this is subjective as I mentioned - not OBJECTIVE. He continues, “I argue that the principles of right and wrong are contingent on the well being of humans, and sans this consideration, right and wrong are useless, empty terms.”The key word here is “I argue”. This shows that it is completely subjective. You argue that, others such as utilitarians, intellectualists and welfarists all argue different things and would say that the principles of right and wrong are contingent on the well being/happiness/knowledge/economic state of humans. What makes your system (ie. well being) any better than any of the other possible option I put in that sentence that you used. Next my opponent dismisses the list of different beliefs such as intellectualism due to the fact that “we’re not talking about beliefs”. My opponent misunderstands my usage of these ideologies. The reason I had for listing them is that it shows just how subjective his arguments are. Anybody can believe any different things. What makes my opponent’s measurement OBJECTIVELY correct and superior to all of these other different ways of measuring morality? It’s all subjective as to which one of these you believe are correct in measuring morality. My opponent concludes,“Actions that are moral can be reduced to actions that lead to well being.” This is subjective. Many people believe in other ways of defining actions that are moral. “Actions that lead to well being must consider homeostasis, as true well being involves homeostasis.” Why? You are asserting this as if it is a fact that homeostasis is the correct way of measuring well being and ultimately determining what is right and wrong. “Homeostasis is an objective condition.”Yes - but NOT an objective unit of measurement for right and wrong actions. “Actions that are moral can be reduced to an objective condition.” You have subjectively decided that one (of many) objective conditions should be used to measure morality. This is not objective morality. This is subjective morality using a subjectively decided objective condition. “Morality can be objective.”Nope. Lastly, my opponent seems to believe that “defined morality with examples, analogies, and a claim that has yet to be refuted that all moral actions can be reduced to actions promoting homeostasis/well being,” he has not defined morality. He’s defined what is moral - which is normative ethics, not metaethics. He has attempted to define what morality actually is and instead attempts to affirm his slightly adapted version of utilitarianism. He states what is moral - ie. well being of humans via homeostasis analysis. Not what morality itself actually is, which is metaethics [2]. The resolution is negated, as is my opponent’s burden. Sources[1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org...