There is no objective basis for morality.

I must clarify for my opponent some basic principles. All of my points are objectively provable, as I will demonstrate. My statement "Actions should not be taken by any individual that do not benefit himself" refers to the fact that the only purpose of life is to survive and pass on our DNA, as has been scientifically proven. our brains are wired around this basic fact. It is non-negotiable that individuals exist selfishly, as there is no other real reason why one would act. I also stated that "a net loss is bad", which apparently my opponent cannot understand/does not believe. The only reason to act in any way is to achieve something (e.g. moving into the kitchen to grab a soda from the refrigerator requires some effort but is rewarded in a self-centered way). I am defining a "net loss" as the opposite of achievement (which would be a net gain). Without a perceived gain in the future as a result of certain actions, individuals do not act upon those actions. Therefore, if you do not gain something from your effort, you have failed. This is objectively proven by my clarification of the self-centered mind. Pro also said "if John Doe enjoys killing people, deriving gratification from the act of taking a life, then the action of killing people would be a 'benefit' and not a 'net loss' to John Doe". However, the act of killing someone is an objectively unbalanced deal that relies on the initiation of force. This fact, as I will demonstrate, proves that it is objectively correct to support morality. The initiation of force is defined as "The initiation of force is the act of one man initiating force against another, as opposed to retaliatory force. Force includes such acts as murder, theft, threats, and fraud. It is acting against another person without their consent."1 This means that it is not a voluntary transaction when such immoral actions are made. It is known that man survives because of his possession of reason, which other animals lack. He is able to think further ahead into the future and become self-aware, among other things. Man does not have fur, claws, super speed, flight, super jaws, immense weight, or any other physical weapons that other animals have to defend themselves, he uses his mind to utilize his environment and create what he needs to adapt to his surroundings. Force prevents man from using his reason and therefore surviving. If human beings were to forget about morality, objectively things would become harder for everyone. I know. That sounds like a subjective statement. But it is not, death is objectively bad because the only reason in living is to enjoy life, and death makes it, well, harder, to enjoy life. Also, this point proves that a human life is self-owned. This is because everyone is responsible for their own well-being and the self-centered brain proves this. If every person is self-interested by design, and the only point in living is to enjoy life, then it would follow that a sense of ownership is apparent. If I am responsible for my own life, preserving my life, enjoying my life, and passing on my DNA, and I retain full control of my body, mind, and reason, then I retain ownership over my life. And by living reasonably, I am compelled not to kill or steal or vandalize, because doing so would mean that I would want that to happen to me. And because nobody wants to be killed or have their possessions stolen or vandalized, nobody reasonably kills, as it would violate the laws of reason. Pro said that war and genocide and general human history proves that we do act without regard to morality. However, I can prove there are two separate scenarios. There is the scenario of pure irrational behavior (e.g. mugging someone, breaking into someone's house) and there is the scenario of forced irrational behavior (e.g. going to war). Pure irrational behavior occurs when one's animalistic instincts from long before reason became apart of the modern human mind is greater in a person's mind than their sense of reason, and so they become like an animal, and they do not put their actions into objection. Forced irrational behavior occurs when individuals act as a group and cooperate with the goal of "common good" which results in a "mob mentality". This is a glitch in the system. The human mind is wired as an individual, thinking of himself, and only himself (and immediate family) in a reasonable and objective way. When individuals get together in hopes of increasing survival, safety increases exponentially. This is the idea behind cities. However, this can go wrong when it is taken too far, and people begin acting like animals (apart of a pack or heard, mindlessly following orders from peers). Wars are caused by this, and so are genocides, and everything of that sort. No one goes to war because they hate another individual on the other side because of something that individual did to them. People go to war for their country, race, religion, or other primitive categories that can be defined as "collectivism". When a man possesses reason, he does not do this. It follows that the former is of greater importance in this debate than the latter. If Pro is willing to state that man does not survive because of his possession of reason, he has lost this debate already. Being reasonable means making decisions to serve yourself, but also thinking objectively, and killing another man violates the laws of reason. 1 http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com...