DA Tournament: The Most Accurate Meta-Ethical Theory. Moral Realism (Pro) vs Moral Relativism (Con)

I have definitely learned a few things and have a few things to think about. Moral RealismArgument from TelosI presented the argument from telos as both an argument for affirming moral realism, and also an argument for refuting existential nihilism, it is dual-purpose, since the existence of external purpose to our lives strongly implies moral realism, as then we would have real factors involves in moral facts (thus realism). The argument from telos would rule deism as impossible, since all actions mandate fnal causation. Thus either a gd is not indifferent, or a god is both indifferent and had a purpose in mind, which is an oxymoron in terms (self-refuting). Thus in either case, Con’s deism rebuttal makes no logical sense. Furthermore the argument only affirms for intention within the “essence” of all biological beings, thus it is within our inherent nature that we have intentionality, similarly to how a water bottle has the purpose of being filled with water contained within its essence. Thus this argument affirms essentialism. Furthermore, Con’s evolution rebuttal is completely irrelevant, since evolution would just be the mechanism by which the product (people, sentient beings) are brought about. They would still possess essential intentionality, similarly to how a manufacturer uses tools to make a bottle, the bottle still had intentionality. Moral Sense Theory This argument is an inductive inference to the best explanation. I made this explicit enough in my opening. Con attempts to shoehorn evolution in as an explanation (yet again), yet there are two problems with this:1. Evolution is not mutually exclusive to moral realism2. Evolution lacks explanatory power of much of the moral senseI already affirmed #1, for #2 we clearly see instances where altruistic behaviour/moral behaviour is performed in a manner which does not best benefit the propagation of our species. For example, self-sacrifice for those afflicted with ailments such as terminal cancer, etc. clearly do not go very far in propagating our species, yet Con is hardly going to deny this happens. Furthermore, in European countries we generally respect our elders, and provide healthcare and support for those who are within their twilight years. There is no way this aids propagating our species since said people are long past the age of reproductive viability, and often have limited physical and mental functions in such a way that executing them would probably be better for propagation of our species. Examples like this are ubiquitous among societies, and evolution alone doesn’t provide nearly adequate explanatory power. Thus moral realism stands as an excellent inference to the best explanation. We have a direction within our moral behaviours and sense, our innate feelings and intuitions of right and wrong, and these strongly support realism. Con also tries to object by arguing some people have a moral duty to kill people, but does nothing to show that this is true, and not just a mental disorder. Clearly these instances are the exception, and not the norm, thus Con would need to rule out mental disorders before arguing our moral sense doesn’t exist, he only assumes this to be the case. A review of the literature on the connection between mental disorders and violence concluded:“Identifying people with risk of violence and offering them mental health treatment services is warranted. “[. http://tinyurl.com...]Categorical ArgumentCon essentially drops my categorical argument, as his rebuttal is completely off-the-mark. I have shown that it is meaningless to have a category for “amorality” unless “morality” has truth-conditions. Since Con is tautologically committed to argue for amorality then he must also concede that truth-conditions do exist, and thus necessarily entails moral realism. Pro tries to affirm the moral truth values from a non-objective source but this is an equivocation, especially considering my argument is effectively a reducio ad absurdum:1. Moral Realism is false (assumption for reducio)2. If moral realism is false then all actions exist within “amorality”3. If amorality is true, then “amorality” is a coherent concept4. If “amorality” is a coherent concept, then “morality” is a coherent concept5. If “morality” is a coherent concept then moral realism is true6. Moral realism is true7. Contradiction (1&6), therefore A must be falseCon seems to be challenging premise 5, but that’s essentially impossible, since the truth conditions are real, thus moral statements are objectively true or false, which necessarily entails realism. Functional RealismCon ignores the fact that the examples I gave were made outside the immediate self-interest of the countries involved. Thus ethnocentrism is insufficient to mitigate since that’s what it mandates. Moreover this was for the purposes of establishing a default position, that it’s doxastic and indeed this assumption exists for both people and governing bodies. Moral RelativismEvolution Argument Evolving Morality vs Evolving Perception of Morality“Following this logic, there should be some animals with higher moral acuity that have a more accurate description of ethical propositions than human beings do. ”1. Just how exactly does this falsify an evolving perception?2. Why should we expect that?3. Who is to say none do? This hardly an argument. This “rebuttal” would be equally valid against evolution explaining human intelligence. Since because some animals have higher visual acuity, then it follows some animals should have higher mental acuity. Thus argument is nonsensical. Argument from math vs. evolution Con again misses the point of my rebuttal: 1. If math has ontological existence, then it is not emergent2. If math doesn’t have ontological existence, then it is not emergentC. In either case, math is not emergentThus Con’s arguments regarding math “existing” is a complete red herring, since my argument addresses the notion of anything being emergent predicated on evolution. Con makes the absurd argument that math is contingent on human beings, if that were the case and humans were subjective, then what is true in math would be subjective. But that is clearly not the case, 2+2=4 doesn’t change from one person to another. Con is essentially digging his own grave and filling it in for me! Evolution being a basis for moralityFirst of all, this was meant to be Con’s argument FOR moral relativism, and he has spectacularly failed to uphold this by attacking a red herring that it allegedly upholds moral realism. He can attack evolution being the basis of moral realism all he likes, he can win that argument hands down, but it wouldn’t affirm that evolution affirms moral relativism, it would likely just be the case that it affirms neither (which was my original point). He doesn’t address the plain fact that evolution deals with what is objective, with what ‘is’, thus it is impossible in principle for it to affirm a moral fact (an “ought”). EgoismCon essentially killed himself by giving an example of an egoistic society that clearly wasn’t within the overall self-interest of that society (Nazi regime). Moreover capitalism Pro has only affirmed to be a “good enough” philosophy. Descriptive relativismThis a blatant cherry picking fallacy. [. http://tinyurl.com...] It’s insufficient for Con to show a select few examples, but Con needs to show general trends over moral facts. The very fact there exists a static concensus on the core of these issues strongly implies realism. EthnocentrismCon concedes in R3 that this is at best a mitigating argument against moral realism, and not an argument in favour of relativism. ConclusionMost of Con’s rebuttals have been off-target in affirming/negating. They simply do not get the core issues involved. Thus my arguments carry significantly more weight than Con’s. As such, a Pro vote is required.