Morality is not objective nor decided by any god but rather a freedom of people

Thanks for your response! I see your argument where you explain the logical fallacy galled tautology. Well, is my explanation a tautology? For the people yes. In my argument I don't claim objective morality so whatever is good to a person, is good to that person. But since I don't claim an objective morality I don't see why that is a problem. - "As soon he says, "these are the morals I believe in, and I think they should also apply to you," he is no longer operating under subjective morality. " How many times do I have to repeat that I am not referring to a subjective morality where you can not extend beyond the individual? I think I elaborated clearly in my previous post that in my explanation, you are allowed to. If that is not subjective morality, then so be it. It is not objective either and I have no clue what it is called (if it has a name). Then he writes: If morality belongs to each person, then it cannot extend to others. Why? -"Would the Holocaust become a morally acceptable event if we all suddenly decided genocide is ok?" To all the people in the world it is, not objectively, but I am quite sure the Jews didn't really like what was happening so your point is invalid about the discrepancy with the Holocaust. And besides, most of the people on this planet didn't really think the Holocaust was morally okay. - "For everyone to freely choose their own moral opinions, all opinions must be equally acceptable to choose." Yes, although I didn't argue they were free to choose. The color of your skin isn't free to choose either. Its a matter of evolution. - "If there is no good or bad, then Hitler's actions are morally equal to Gandhi's." How could you ask a question concerning an objective good or bad if in my explanation there is no such thing as equally good or bad in an objective sense? A person might think Hitler was morally better then Gandhi. I am sure most of the people on the planet would have the opposite opinion. That still doesn't mean morality is objective. - "First, it is important to remember that a possible explanation is not proof. " Granted. You are completely right here. I think we are moving to a nice conclusion here: - " I submit that while both possibilities exist, human nature as observed over our entire history overwhelmingly indicates that we should, indeed, exist. There is virtually no evidence to the contrary." Yes, and as I argue, it is logical to only find morals pointed towards survival because those are obviously the only ones left. - "I am referring to stone age societies, where morality would have started evolving" How do you know it started there? In my explanation, morality exists in plants, insects and animals too. "Pacifism also cannot be explained by evolution, because clearly pacifism offers no survival advantages among warlike tribes." Pacifism could have started later. Obviously the human species isn't 100% pacifistic at this point in time so it is not like I'd have to explain pacifism to that extent. And in a society where we try to resolve situations by using words rather than war I do not see why pacifism wouldn't be pro survival. - "Pro is suggesting it's bad to lie to yourself, even though lying is not always bad?" This argument only becomes logical if you look at morals in a very black and white fashion. Small lies can be good to smooth out social situations. Lying about big financial matters might have catastrophic consequences to yourself and others. Lying to yourself(religion?) can be good for keeping hope in situations where you are sad, but lying to yourself about gambling can cause major money issues(assuming you do not want to lose all of your money). It isn't as easy as just regarding lying as good or bad. Besides the fact that it is personal, depending on the situation lying might have outcomes that a person might find good or bad. People also might not oversee the consequences in longer terms. I am appealing to certain levels of naivety here. - "Next, Pro says "There is a good reason to appreciate handicapped people because to others, they are still people." This implies an objective principle as well - people have intrinsic worth." No. I am referring to Anthropomorphism. Just because they are handicapped doesn't mean that people don't look at them as people anymore. Back in the days when the animated series 'Avatar: The last Airbender' was still online, I used to love the show and the characters. When the show stopped I felt horrible. Like I lost a dear friend. Even though these people are fake, my brain still recognizes human like features and therefore cares about these characters. If they die, sometimes people might cry out of sadness. That is just an evolutionary feature of the human brain to personify things. Handicapped people are still people. You don't have to appeal to their worth to conclude that. I am not talking about a type of subjective morality, you are. I might slip in the word subjective here and there. I am appealing to a non-objective morality, namely the one I described. Read the thing. "I am not even going to respond to the lengthy "blob" example, because it is almost totally irrelevant. Of course organisms with stronger survival practices will overcome others. It simply means one organism is stronger and another is weaker. I fail to see how this supports an argument about subjective morality." It is very common to make models of specific things to emulate their properties. Scientists can model human behaviour to simulate crowd control with mathematical formula's. Like that is what we are doing in our heads. Of course not, but that doesn't mean the idea is wrong. Let me explain how it supports my point of view. What this example illustrates is how dominant moral values can form out of a system that has no objective moral values. You can see an end product with a common 'morality' or 'code of operation'. But as you said before, even though it 'might' explain my point. It is not evidence. I have to grand you the fact that I have no evidence for my statement. I guess the people have to vote to see if my idea is plausible and might work as an explanation for morality. To prove my theory I'd have to give predictions and go through a scientific process. Since this is my final remark I have to end with a closing statement. let me first thank my opponent for this debate. I think he was very fruitful debate and I enjoyed it. In my personal opinion, to this point, my opponent failed to demonstrate why it is necessary that if morality isn't objective but personal, we are not able to extend our morals onto others. I might have thrown in some confusion in this debate by using the word subjective morality where It shouldn't have been what I meant. Let me say here that I am NOT talking about subjective morality my opponent explained perfectly. I would agree that that kind of thing doesn't exist. But that was not the point I was defending. I have no clue what name tag belongs to the explanation of morality that I am offering but I am sure it is not objective or subjective. Frankly, I don't care what it is called. I attempted to defend that everybody is born with certain moral goals. Morality is a pure product from evolution. There is no objective ought in morality. Objectively, there is no judgment of certain actions from a moral point of view because there is no objective moral value. But due to evolution, most people share the same moral code just like we all have eyes and arms. A morality saying that we shouldn't kill or hurt others and shouldn't steal, etc, etc. On some more vague areas of morality, we do differ just like the color of our eyes and skin. The less it matters for survival, the less dominant specific moral values are. Even though we all seem to share that need for survival, objectively, there is no reason to assume we should survive in the first place. It is just the morality that is left. Let me end up by converging to as close as my opponent and I can get to each other, I quote: "Morals of this flavor, in a sense, objectively declare "this is the universal way humans should live to have the best chance of survival." Of course, I agree that this depends on the assumption that humans ought to survive to begin with. Pro suggests this is doubtful." I guess at this point we only disagree on two things: 1. My opponent thinks that because we all share the need for survival, this means that we 'should exist'. I think this is nonsense, it just shows that those who try survive, exist. 2. My opponent doesn't believe morality can be explained by evolution. I do, and I tried to demonstrate this by offering explanations to challenges of my opponent. I grant him that this is not prove and that therefore, I didn't prove my point of my explanation to morality. If I am wrong here, please correct me. This is how I interpreted your arguments. I can be wrong here. Without having given proof for my point, I don't think I have to get people to consider my idea plausible. In the same way my opponent didn't prove that morality is objective either but then again, the burden of proof wasn't on his side for this debate so you can not blame him for that. He didn't even try, and he didn't have to. I postulated a new view on the origin of morality and the voters have to decide if I argued better for my view or Con argued better against my view. If con turns out to win, I'd hereby like to congratulate him for his victory. Since the majority voted for him, he deserved it!