Objective morality exist, Top Down (God) vs Bottoms Up (Natural)

In this round I will begin by addressing Pro's rebuttals to my opening argument. I will then argue against authoritarian morality and hope to demonstrate that it is ultimately subjective. Pro's Rebuttals 1 and 3 I'm going to address these two together since they share a common point. They are both off point. Pro's second paragraph's first sentence R1, "The human body did not evolve through natural selection of the most moral but the most adaptable. " This objection doesn't address the point of my argument. I never claimed, at any point, that human beings evolved in a moral direction. I never made an argument that our biology has evolved a moral system. My argument was that our biology makes on objective statement regarding harm. I then presented an argument using reason to conclude this statement is a correct statement. Pro's rebuttal 1 doesn't address the point of my argument in any way. To be clear, my point is "biology makes an objective statement that harm is bad. " Pro needs to argue against this point. In rebuttal 1 he doesn't do this. Moving to rebuttal 3, this one is even farther off point. It falls into the Red Herring category. [1] For those who may be unfamiliar with the "Red Herring" term, it is a term applied to an argument that is intended to distract from the actual discussion. I don't know if this is intentional or just a simple mistake, but in Pro's rebuttal 3 he presents one. Pro's R3 quote, "Let us remember that what we are debating is whether or not your belief system is internally consistent. " Do I need to point this out? No that isn't what we are debating at all. Not even close. I wrote the proposition. I wrote the debate guidelines. We are debating objective morality from an authoritarian perspective (Pro's) and from a natural perspective (Con's). If Pro wishes to do the "internally consistent belief system" set that up and challenge me. Rebuttal 3 is completely invalid and completely off topic. Pro's Rebuttal 2 I must confess frustration here, I wish people would truly stick to the arguments. In my opening argument I clear established harm as being objectively bad through a biological statement. This removed it from human opinion. Pro either didn't understand the argument or he is intentionally miss representing it. A quote from my round 2 argument, ". .. which perspective is correct? Tim's subjective position on harm or his biology's objective statement. " "Well needless to say, Tim's biology has gotten it right. " I've grounded harm in a biological statement not a human opinion. Now lets look at a few quotes from Pro's R2, ". .. is to make the presupposition that the individuals preferences must be valid. " Once again, I established harm in a biological statement, not an "individuals preferences. " "Both of these statements are heavily grounded in the opinion that the preferences of human beings are to be valued. .. " Again, no they are not. I grounded harm in a biological statement, not a human preference. Here is one of my round 2 statements that Pro is referring to, "Harm is bad. Killing is harm. Killing is bad. " Pro is simply wrong here. The "harm is bad" portion is grounded in "our biology states that harm is bad. " The argument I presented in round 2 is my own argument. I haven't seen it before. Maybe it is valid, maybe it isn't. But, Pro has yet to tackle my main point, our biology states that harm is objectively bad. My suspicion is that Pro doesn't quite know what to do with this argument. Pro might be nibbling at the edges because this isn't a standard argument. I would like Pro to tackle the argument directly. I personally want to know if it holds up. Rebuttal 2 doesn't hold up because Pro is claiming I'm grounding harm in human opinion, that clearly isn't the case. Rebuttals conclusion To this point my argument still holds up. Pro's rebuttals 1 and 3 don't address my argument. Pro's rebuttal 2 claims I haven't moved "harm is bad" from human opinion. Read my argument, you will see I have done that. Why is authoritative morality fundamentally subjective? If we establish morality in any authority, it is subjective due to the nature of the authority. P1 God is Good. Based on what standard? Horn 1. External standard. Pro cannot select this option. He says there is no standard outside God. Horn 2. God's standard. This is Pro's. This is subjective. I'm good based on my standard. Pro is good based on his standard. Satan is good based on his standard. George W. Bush is good based on his standard. If God is pure evil, yet we base goodness on his standards, then evil is goodness. There are no moral absolutes in this model, no objective moral standards. Whatever God is, we simply say that is good. That isn't objective. That is subjective. Horn 1 defeats Pro's position. Horn 2 defeats Pro's position. P2 Pro cannot claim God is good. This closely follows from P1. How does Pro make this claim? He cannot appeal to an outside source. Then say, "God follows the lines of goodness, therefore God is good. " Pro must presuppose God is good. But that presupposition has a cost. It leaves Pro with no ability to know if he is following a good God. If Pro cannot know if he is following a good God, then Pro cannot claim this God is the author of an objectively positive moral system. P3 By what standard did God determine theft to be bad? Horn 1. Some external standard. Pro cannot select this option. Horn 2. His own standard. If this is the case, then it is pure opinion. Lets imagine a world before humans existed. Theft at this time is neutral. Not a current issue. Then humans arrive. God then must decide if theft is good or bad. How does he decide? Pro, is it just opinion? Does he appeal to the consequences of theft? God, "It harms someone. " Me, "Why does that matter? " God, "It has a negative effect on the lives of people. " Me, "Why does that matter? " Notice the trap God and Pro are falling into. If God appeals to an outside reason that theft is bad, then morality lies outside God. That defeats Pro's position. If God simply says, "because I said so. " That is nothing more than the subjective opinion of an authority, might makes right. Question to Pro. By what standard did God determine theft to be bad? How is that objective? Horn 1 defeats Pro's position. Horn 2 defeats Pro's position. P4 Can God do something that is immoral? Horn 1. Yes. If this is the answer, then morality resides outside of God/authority. Horn 2. No. Then there are no moral absolutes. No moral absolutes, no objective moral standards. If God decides to kill an innocent child, then killing an innocent child is good. Horn 1 defeats Pro's position. Horn 2 defeats Pro's position. P5 A gotcha moment? Let's look back to a comment made in Pro's rebuttal 2, "Con has not distanced himself from opinion. " Opinion is a shared problem for both of us. We both are trying to get to objective moral standards. I've removed human opinion and established it in a biological statement. I've made that case already. But, Pro has made NO attempt to remove opinion and in fact has conceded that his position is opinion with this comment from round 1, "God's moral opinion supersedes the moral opinion of humanity. " I'm sure this wasn't an intended concession but it is a concession none the less. Opinion is subjective. My opinion is that shrimp is delicious. My wife's opinion is that shrimp is disgusting. This is nothing more than, "God is the top authority. The top authority sets the rules. Might makes right. " No objective moral standards, just authoritative standards. I have a few characters left. So I would like to show the problems with Top Down morality vs. Bottoms Up morality. I will use a few examples. A man is picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Exodus 15:32. Exodus 15:35 "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones (you mean not stone him with sticks? ) outside the camp. '" If we presuppose that God is good, then we must claim this action is just and good. However, I'm advocating for a different approach. The Bottoms Up approach. What has the man done? Pick up sticks. Is there harm in that? It doesn't appear so. God decides to have the man killed. Is there harm in that? Yes. The Bottoms Up approach says this decree by God is immoral because the man has done no harm and God's commandment does harm. For Pro, he must claim this directive is good. Pro has placed himself in no position to evaluate the directive. All directives are good, regardless of what they are. Let's imagine an even more absurd scenario. God decides to flood the entire planet, killing nearly all life, pandas, lion cubs, kittens, puppies, children, the elderly, pregnant women, giraffes, trees, bees, you name it, God is killing it, and all but a very few that can fit in a boat. Now if we accept God as the standard for goodness, we MUST conclude this action to be good. So is it? Pro must answer Yes. Regardless of whether the story is true or not. In this example, if it is an action done by God, it is a good action by default. Now let's apply the approach I'm advocating for. Does God's action inflict harm? It does in the most extreme way. Needless to say, this is an immoral action, without question. Are you noticing the problem here? Presupposing goodness in God removes ones ability to evaluate moral or immoral actions. Pro is forced to accept all moral actions from God has good. He has no ability to even know if he is correct or not. The Bottoms Up approach gives us tools to evaluate moral decrees from ANY authority. This makes it clearly superior. It is objective. I've removed human opinion and placed it in a biological statement. Top Down is purely subjective and removes our ability to make moral assessments. Back to you Pro. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(disambiguation)