There Exists an Objective Morality

Evolutionary EthicsLet me re-state my syllogistic argument: 1. Human thoughts are objective biological functions of the brain2. The human brain, and therefore its biological functions, have been objectively standardized as a direct result of evolutionary development3. Human thoughts have been objectively standardized as a direct result of evolutionary development4. Morality is a direct product of the human brain's thought function5. Morality has been objectively standardized as a direct result of evolutionary development---I have established that morality is a product of the human mind, which, in turn, is a product of the human brain's function. Therefore, I uphold the definition of morality that was established, but I also affirm that morality is strictly a product of the human brain, a result of cognitive function. The opponent notes my fourth argument, and he states that this means that morality is subjective. This brings up an important question: Does the fact that morality is generated by thought mean that it is subjective? Subjectivity: Judgement based on individual personal impressions and feelings and opinions rather than external facts. [1, taken from my opponent's argument] Indeed, subjectivity is derived from one's impressions, feelings, and opinions. But what are impressions, feelings, and opinions derived from? They are simply products of thoughts, objective electrochemical brain functions. Let me explain this further:When we question the objectivity of morality, we also question the objectivity of thought. The concept of morality is a product of human thought, after all. And, as I have stated, thought has been objectively standardized through evolution. The inherent standard structure of our brain that is shared among all members of the human community has commonalities that restricts one's world view and affect his or her outlook on what is good and what is bad. The opponent is stating "Killing is wrong" is an objective truth, and I am replying with "John thinks killing is wrong" is an objective truth. And I follow by stating that what John "thinks," the act of thought, is objective and standardized in the human community. In other words, the opponent has not grasped yet that I am recognizing morality in terms of objective thought rather than some of mystical, external entity. Thoughts can vary, but the function of thought is standardized and restricted; such is the point of evolutionary ethics. This does not mean that all morality is objective; there are certainly other factors that make it partly subjective, such as social construction. I do not claim otherwise, and do not need to in order to meet my burden of proof. But there is an underlying objectivity (in the form of biological restraints) that produces our moral views. In that regard, there is an objective morality, driven by natural structure and function, and my burden of proof, as Pro, is met. SubjectivityThe opponent drops his argument on this matter. However, he fuses his views of subjectivity with the his prior refutation against evolutionary ethics.Descriptive relativismThe opponent drops this argument... But it never really was an argument. Just a few blocks of copy-and-pasted text. ---[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...