Science can determine human values.

Premise One ResponsesWe only have moral oblgiations to conscious creatures because moral obligations are only meaningful to conscious creatures. If every conscious creature were to vanish, then morality would become meaningless. Why would 'Should we kill each other?' or 'Is lying wrong?' matter in a universe with no conscious creatures? Moral obligations should be given to conscious creatures because only conscious creatures can give moral obligations meaning.We have moral obligations to a human child because it is a conscious creature. It is capable of feeling pain and pleasure, and its well-being can be improved or hurt by the actions of other conscious creatures. Overtly, lightbulbs and rocks are not capable of such feelings, as they are not living things. Ergo, we are justified in stating that we have no moral obligations to rocks or lightbuls.I wish to wonder off the specifics of vegetarianism and meat-eating. I am personally a vegetarian, as I do not see any moral justification for eating meat. Even a meat eater such a Sam Harris has acknowledged that there is not a moral justification for it. I do not wish to elaborate on the morality of meat-eating, as that would be wildly off-topic. Instead, I will further the notion that claims about meat-eating and vegetarianism can be analyzed scientifically.Con cites the issue of cutting down trees as people having moral obligations to things that are not conscious. At first glance, this would seem to refute my contention that we only have moral obligations to conscious creatures. However, Con's own example shows that the issue of cutting down trees relates to the well-being of conscious creatures. Firstly, most people who are against cutting down trees argue that it would be detrimental to the environment. Conscious creatures live in environments. Ergo, cutting down trees relates to the well-being of conscious creatures. Furthermore, if we were to ask people why the Earth should be left the way it is, the reasons they cite will eventually be reducted to something that relates to the well-being of conscious creatures. I wish to put emphasis on a quote by Con before I close my responses for this premise. He said, 'Pro has asked that I present a moral issue that does not relate to the well-being of conscious creatures, but I don't think there is one.' This shows that there is no reason to think that moral questions do not relate to the well-being of conscious creatures. Instead, he only suggests that I have not justified the idea that we only have moral obligations to conscious creatures. An important contention of my argument has been proven to be true.Premise Two ResponsesThe is-ought distinction is false, as is statements and ought statemens can be easily connected through thought experiments. For the sake of this thought experiment, let's say that getting from Point A to Point B in the fastest way possible is a moral value. 'The fastest way from point to another is in a straight line' is an 'is' statement.Moral value: Getting from A to be B in the fastest way possible.Is statement: The fastest way from A to B is in a straight line.Ought statement: You ought to travel in a straight line.Therefore, 'is' statements can be connected with 'ought' statements.Premise Three ResponsesCon presents a situation where different people's well-being is affected from different actions. He argues that because of this, science cannot determine well-being. However, the fact that we have many ways of promoting well-being does not undermine my moral system. By analogy, consider food. There are many healthy foods that one can eat. On any day, you could eat brocolli, carrots, or celery, and they would all be healthy foods. However, there is a clear difference between healthy food and poison, and the fact that there are many healthy foods to eat does not tempt us to say that there is no poison. To put this analogy in real terms, we have many ways of pursuing well-being, but this does not mean there are not ways to harm well-being. I have not argued at all that there is only way to pursue well-being, and Con's example of different people recieving well-being from different things does not refute my moral system at all.Conclusion ResponseCon misrepresents my arguments. I have not said that science determines all moral issues. Otherwise, the resolution would be 'Science determines human values'. The resolution states 'Science can determine human values'.Answering Remaining Statements'To reiterate, Pro's resolution is self-defeating. You can't arrive at the statement "science can determine human values" scientifically.'This is why I used a mix of scientific and philosophical argumentation.'Pro even used a philosophical argument to arrive at his statement about science.'When have I argued, in any way, that philosophical argumentation is not valid? It is my view that science comes from the belly of philosophy, and that the two interesect in many areas, including morality.'Pro's argument is also invalid because the Conclusion doesn't follow from the Premises.'Con makes this statement based off a misunderstanding of what exactly I'm arguing for.'Pro's first premise fails because he didn't show why our obligation is only to conscious creatures, and why we don't have obligations to non-conscious entities.'I believe that I have proved this in the argumentation above.' He also failed to show why our feelings are sufficient to grant "human value" to an object.'I am not referring to human value in the way that we would value our favorite TV show or our favorite food. I am talking about human values as moral issues.'Pro's second premise fails because it's purely a descriptive claim that doesn't show a prescriptive obligation for human beings towards another human being or another conscious creature.'I believe that the is-ought distinction can be refuted by connecting an 'is' statement with an 'ought' statement. I have attempted to do in my argumentation above.'Pro's third premise fails because science can't show whether or not someone will value something that someone else will not. You can't derive human values from science because human beings are all different, and the things they value are established by a number of different factors, including their beliefs, environment, etc.'The resolution does not require one thing to benefit the well-being of everybody.