Morality, like gravity, is a physical force in nature

Observation 1: I accept Pro’s clarification; however he should not be allowed to make any further clarification in the final round. Further modification of his position makes Pro a moving target, shifting his position as evasion of my arguments. If Pro hasn’t made his position clear by now, he should lose the debate. Observation 2: Pro has not contested that he has the BOP in this debate. 1) Hume’s Law Pro’s ONLY response to this argument is that it is “metaphysical” and thus irrelevant. First, this is non-responsive to my original argument- that facts like “humans have a desire for happiness” do not justify moral claims like “humans ought to promote happiness.” It is absurd to claim that every natural desire of humans justifies moral claims to pursue those desires – some humans have a desire to rape but that doesn’t justify promoting rape. The bare fact that constructal law means certain value systems will spread does not demonstrate that those value systems are morally right. Second, Pro arbitrarily labels this argument “metaphysical” as a cop-out. Hume’s law is an argument about the nature of morality just as Pro’s entire case is an argument about morality. I’m also not sure how his source proves that my argument should be ignored. Third, the genre of my argument is irrelevant; if my argument disproves the Resolution that is all the justification I need to use it. And this argument DOES disprove the Resolution- morality makes normative claims about what people “should” do, Pro has offered no arguments justifying normative statements. Finally, Pro proves my point in claiming extinction “improves” outcomes. He arbitrarily interjects moral terms into naturalistic events- extinction is often due only to sudden shifts in the environment (or the “current” a system is exposed to). Prior to a global ice or asteroid collision, dinosaurs were very well-adapted and successful systems; it makes no sense to claim an ice age transformed dinosaurs from “preferable” to “less preferable.” On what grounds do we decide that species that survive extinction are “preferable?” Why shouldn’t we prefer species that go extinct? Any response to this question will inevitably be value-laden. 2a) Constructal Law is devoid of Value Judgments Bejan’s statements are arguments that go beyond the initial formulation of the Constructal law, which is only compelling due to the wide range of naturalistic behavior it describes, such as evolution and fluid behavior. That Bejan is willing to go beyond the original naturalistic formulation and impose value judgment on cultural developments doesn’t prove Pro’s assertion, it just shows that Pro isn’t the first person to make the assertion. A LOT of ideas “travel and persist” – racial animosity has been around since recorded history, as has slavery and the treatment of women as property. Are these ideas “good?” At best Constructal theory offers an explanation for why ideas persist- they minimize flow resistance. Constructal theory says nothing on whether those ideas are morally preferable. Pro is unresponsive to my point that constructal outcomes are dependent on what currents are imposed on a system. The implication is that societies imposed to different currents can arrive at contradictory value systems. This undermines Pro’s claims about human rights. 2b) Constructal Law does not necessitate moral outcomes First, Pro ignores the empirical proof of my claim- that biological evolution results in wildly divergent outcomes. The same “currents” imposed on the Amazon rainforest resulted in trees, ants, fungus, fish, and bacteria. There may be patterns of similarity between certain branches of biological families, but even these patterns diverge: trees are extremely dissimilar from ants. Second, arguing for minimization of movement energy does NOT prove Pro’s point. My entire argument is that there are indeterminate ways for that energy to be minimized. Moreover, the fact that life has a general trend ignores that the “currents” which resulted in life ALSO resulted in diverse forms of non-life like valleys and inorganic minerals. Constructal law applies to the entire physical world; the divergent nature of life and non-life shows how radically different outcomes can emerge from the Law. My original point stands- Pro is picking and choosing whatever constructal outcomes best align with accepted Western philosophy to create the illusion of moral content in constructal theory. There is nothing moral about the fact that dinosaurs went extinct and sharks didn’t, but this is just as much a system “embracing positive feedback” as anything Pro claims is moral. Pro has made the MASSIVE claim that the rise of tyrannies over free societies is just one entry on the path toward “harmony.” Turbulence in the Middle East has resulted in the largest number of displaced peoples globally since WWII [1]. In a world where humanity has the power to obliterate itself via nuclear and biological weapons, Pro needs to demonstrate why harmony is inevitable for humanity. Nothing about Constructal Law guarantees the political freedom Pro wants. The currents of survival and the urge to dominate could result in a society minimizing access to those currents via efficiently despotic governments. Pro’s explanation of the Middle East conflict shows how Constructal Law DOES NOT guarantee “moral outcome;” he admits the Mid East has shown a tendency to fracture into competing factions. History has time and again shown the societal pressures can result in morally despicable governments. [1] http://www.usatoday.com... Pro says the US is repeating the mistakes of Rome – this suggests history has cyclical tendencies, not a unifying moral direction toward freedom. Pro’s case would suggest the emergence of stable free societies, but even he concedes this is not happening. Pro offers no explanation for how we can claim that one society’s values are morally superior to others. This is important because PRO CLAIMS unalienable rights for all humans falls out of his framework; Pro’s position entails that societies which do not respect those rights are immoral. 3) Pro’s concept of “right” yields bizarre moral judgments Pro simply asserts that moral judgments must embrace the unalienable rights of a group, even though his definition of right is only “to embrace positive feedback.” Nothing about Pro’s own definition of right and wrong necessitates group dynamics. Nothing about the constructal law places a greater emphasis on group behavior or individual behavior. If crack addicts could best embrace positive feedback by sustaining their addiction, then they meet Pro’s criteria for right behavior. Con concedes that swimming with inefficient finger placement is immoral; this is a reductio ad absurdum againstCon’s case. This argument underscores that constructal law is silent on value judgments. Even Pro’s formulation of “right” is essentially silent on such judgments. Pro claims “right” is embracing positive feedback, but doesn’t define what type of positive feedback or explain why we should prefer some types to other. Crack cocaine generates chemical positive feedback, anything that aids individual survival is positive feedback, anything that perpetuates sexual reproduction is positive feedback. Constructal law merely predicts an increase in efficiency under a system subjected to currents. A crack addict demonstrates this principle as the addict cuts out aspects of life that interrupt the positive feedback of drugs and gravitate toward a lifestyle focused one easy access to the current they are imposed to – crack cocaine. 4) Pro fails to account for cases where moral behavior requires embracing negative feedback Pro ignores this argument, which deals with positive feedback in group settings and cultural norms. My argument is that it is often the case that individuals need to go against social norms to behave morally. Pro argues that going against social norms causes negative feedback and is therefore immoral. Pro’s argument leads to the reprehensible conclusion that all the brave men and women who risked their lives and well-being in Nazi Germany to prevent state sponsored murder were acting wrongly. 5) Pro fails to justify his assertions of Universal Rights Pro has yet to justify his claim that Constructal Theory results in unalienable rights. From my perspective, Pro’s case looks incoherent. Pro alternatively argues that there are unalienable rights, that following social norms is always right, that the failure of democracy in the Middle East is embracing freedom, and that right is simply embracing positive feedback. I really do not know what to make of Pro’s moral system. Extend all my arguments about Pro’s complete failure to justify his claim that there are unalienable universal rights. 6) Pro has not proven a force of nature Pro ignores my argument. The Resolution makes a very specific claim about the nature of morality. The Resolution doesn’t just claim that morality is part of the natural world, or that morality is a natural process, or morality is a pattern of physical phenomena. The Resolution claims that morality is a force similar to gravity, establishing that Pro must defend that morality is a fundamental physical force. Pro reiterated his claim in R3 by stating “morality is an attractive physical force.” What Pro has described is not a physical force, but a law describing the behavior of systems. Pro has described a process similar to evolution, and evolution is not a physical force. Evolution does not have “attractive” power; if the Resolution were “evolution is a physical force” Pro would lose. This is not a minor semantic argument- the Resolution makes a very specific claim about morality’s status in nature and Pro needs to defend it. So far Pro has only defended the amorphous claim that morality is part of the natural world, not that it is a physical force.