Absolute morals

Let me start by giving refutations, instead of mixing it up I will make issues and address the issues in a systematic manner: this will I hope allow better clarity this time around. For those who just joined as viewers this debate is a continuation of the debate between Benjamin and I, which finished around an hour ago. That debate may be found here: http://www.debate.org... While it was about God, the contention between us is whether morals are in fact absolute (premise 2 of the first post). This debate was started also because Benjamin read my essay: https://beaconhouse.academia.edu... and would like to now move forward. I thank Benjamin for initiating this debate, and I thank every gracious member of debate.org who will invest his/her time in reading our arguments. I hope we all have a lot of fun, and of course may reach a solution. Now on the issues: 1. "Like most philosophical concepts, morality was created by man" This is a claim laid down by Benjamin, one he has not elucidated upon properly. Onus probandi: he must prove this claim. I give a counter claim: no philosophical concept, insofar as this concept is the object and not the subjective organic understanding (Benjamin did not clear the definition) then it transcends time and space. Humans cannot create anything really, they can mould different objects using the power of imagination to create new objects. (see previous discussion). My entire argument of innate dreams has been left untackled (though I will go through it below, which should provide a better refutation to this issue) 2."Why do we not see morality in nature" Actually we do see morality in nature, or so a University of Colorado's Professor argues. He states that animals indeed are hard-wired with a certain moral code which they follow. This however is still irrelevant as morality is different for animals and humans, humans are a highly evolved species (unless you do not believe in evolution, in which case you would already believe in God and this debate would be redundant, eh Benji), regardless however, they are the species with the neo-cortex part of the brain, for humans morality is much more complex. 3. "Aristotle's words" I have already requested you to not answer this way, please elucidate how it has been challenged, this quote is so out of context I really do not understand how it makes the highest good redundant. 4. "Democratic Society" I have already told you not to make the "is-ought" mistake, society does not decide what ought it decides what is. If you believe society decides what ought then this is a claim you will have to prove. Also I have already presented evidence of how morality is based on intention (I will do so again below) and how it cannot be realized by empirical means. Also law is not morality, let us understand that law depends on actus, and mens rea while morality bases itself on mens rea. Similarly I gave you the example of how if your 6 year old brother spent all day baking you a cake but burnt it, he shall be a bad cook, but not an immoral one. I told you that there is a definitive difference between goodness and morality. Where goodness is concerned with productivity, morality is concerned with intention. Not to mention you are advocating that a democratic country is always right, when in the past we have seen they can be quite idiotic e.g. Iraq War, Vietnam War, World War 1, World War 2, et cetera. 5. "Peanut Butter" [You must give me the recipe] Please tell me what bases you have to analogize morality with taste. It seems quite, Nonetheless your opinion (of morality) will not be taken as the Gospel Truth because you are not God, you are bound by time and space, and are of course of limited reasoning, such that whatever you come up with will only be a construct of innate knowledge. This innate knowledge which you possess contains the absolute morals. Now on to my positive case: 1. Firstly let us remember what we have already spoken about: the two cases of knowledge. The first is a posteriori and the second is innate. A posteriori is empirical knowledge and the conditions of this knowledge are a priori (time, space, and number). The second is innate and this transcends a priori, it is itself a priori. We do not learn the concept of time, we have it, for without it any knowledge would be redundant (empirical)(See Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant). Now I argue that morality is based on intention: my example of the nephew. For if morality was not based on intention then the concept of goodness should not need to exist. Also goodness does not promise the summum bonum: morality promises happiness out of virtue. Now if morality is based on intention then it cannot be based on empirical means, which would mean it is innate. if it is innate then it must transcend the boundaries of time and be absolute. 2. My second argument was that morals have different forms. These forms are limited: homosexuality can be considered moral, it can be considered immoral, it can be considered moral under certain circumstances. Very simply morals move up and down a finite list. An infinite regress cannot exist, therefore the list must have a top, the top would be of absolute morality, 3. The Argument from Innate Dreams made Further. Let us understand that humans cannot construct knowledge, even if morality was empirical, even though it is not, it would be absolute. For our image of aliens, or Pokemon show us that humans' highest cognition is reason, and imagination. In both of these one must start from something, and move further. Imagination is simply the decaying though of reality. Reason is restricted by time, space and number. So it is quite plausible that humans would construct foolish morals, which are bound by time and space simply so they could associate further with it. However that does not change that the morals started from one form: the true form of absolute morality, I believe this alongside my past arguments, the essay and the fact that Benjamin has not refuted my claims properly demand of the voters my win. I urge you to realize the truth in my words. Benjamin I hope you are able to systematically refute my claims this time. Good luck! Ajab PS. Here are some helpful sources: ( I am not advocating all these sources I am simply pointing out their relevance, hence the post script) http://www.livescience.com... http://www.ted.com... http://www.telegraph.co.uk...