There is no objective basis for morality.

Definition of the Physical Laws of Nature:https://en.wikipedia.org...A physical Law in Nature is discovered by the scientific method--a body of techniques used to investigate phenomena through experimental observations that are measurable and repeatable.Within the context of my argument, I use the term “physical Laws of Nature” or “Laws of Nature,” interchangeably, to refer to laws based on observations that a particular phenomenon always occurs under certain conditions. Such repeatable phenomenon brings into existence a set of universally accepted terms and definitions describing a physical law within the scientific community. These physical laws include the Laws of Gravity, Newton's Laws of Motion, the Laws of Aerodynamics, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Constructal Law, to name a few. Some of these Laws are associated with physical constants. The following is a list of some of these constants: http://www.ebyte.it...The names of some of these laws are in honor of the scientists who discovered them, but those scientists did not create the Laws, and there are many more Laws yet to be discovered. These Laws of Nature existed throughout the universe long before the existence of humans. Therefore, these Laws are not metaphysical, that is, based on one's belief or philosophy. Hence; these Laws are “Objective” based on Pro's definition of “Objective” in Round 1. In Round 1 Pro also made the following statement: “Let me clarify that this debate is not about the existence of morality. I think that you have (and nearly everyone has ) a concept that you refer to as morality and that by using your particular concept of morality you make determinations about whether or not some action is moral or immoral.”Again, the following is my concept of morality. Morality is a binary construct. If I may, under the advice of Pro, "When one follows a set of rules, one follows a set of rules [moral] and when one does not follow a set of rules, one does not follow a set of rules [immoral]."My concept of morality is based on the following definitions:Moral: “conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral).”http://dictionary.reference.com...Conduct: “direction or management; execution.”http://dictionary.reference.com...Relative to the “Objective basis for morality” whatever one decides to do in the physical domain must morally comply (“right conduct”) with those “Objective” set of rules defined by the physical Laws of Nature; otherwise, failure will be the norm. Anything we do in the physical universe, of which we are part of, we must morally follow those “Objective” Laws of Nature, to fulfill our pursuits, for we are trapped within the matrix of those Laws, there are no exceptions. As for Pro killing that man on the beach. Pro had to morally follow a Law in Nature as Pro himself stated, “I strangled the man preventing him from getting oxygen and because the laws of nature dictate that a human needs oxygen in order to live and I deprived the man of oxygen he died.” Exactly! As Pro stated “... the laws of nature dictate that a human needs oxygen ...” and therefore, for Pro to fulfill his goal, he must morally follow that “objective” set by the Laws of Nature; otherwise, the man lives. Pro went on to say, “I am asking about the laws of nature, the omnipotent set of rules for the machinery of nature, that Con believes I was following when I formed the goal to kill the man and when I formed the goal to kill myself and what laws I was following when I acted to fulfill my goals.”If there are any physical Laws in Nature that causes one to form a goal, they have yet to be discovered. Until then, forming a goal is simply metaphysical as a function of one's philosophy. In general, metaphysics is a philosophical response relative to the subtle machinery of nature, until the scientific method presents the incarnation of clarity.As for the last part of Pro's statement, “... and what laws I was following when I acted to fulfill my goals.” Pro already stated the answer, “... the laws of nature dictate that a human needs oxygen ...” Again, I would like to emphasize, the set of rules in my position is the “objective” physical Laws of Nature. Not some subjective metaphysical set of human rules, commonly referred to a code of ethics, moral codes, etc. Pro did not specify this debate to be limited only to the metaphysics of morality relative to the subjective nature of ethics as a function of philosophy. As for the difference and similarity of happiness and positive feedback are a function of the bio-level under discussion. At the level of a single living cell there are bio-feedbacks needed for the cell to survive. http://www.sciencemag.org...At the level of higher brain functions there is bio-feedbacks generating the emotional feelings of what us humans perceive such as happiness, unhappiness, depression, etc. So to shorten the discussion I generalized both survival (a prerequisite for human happiness) and happiness as positive feedback. I also generalized in the pursuit of one's goal, a success is feedback that usually (but not always) results in positive feedback (aka happiness, a smile, orgasm, or whatever bio-fixation one perceives as pleasurable, etc.). Pro also stated, “Therefore, according to Con's moral code, since I followed a set of rules, the killing of the man on the beach was moral.” I (Con) did not, anywhere in this debate mentioned or made any references to “Con's moral code.” The only “code” I made reference to is the “objective” physical universal code known as the Laws of Nature. And if Pro or Con wants to get anything done in the physical domain, we must follow (aka moral compliance) that physical code; otherwise, if we do not follow (aka immoral not complying) that physical code, it is not going to get done. Since Pro stated, “I [Pro] will tentatively agree with Con that the physical Laws of Nature (e.g. the Laws of Thermodynamics) are objective ...” It would seem, this debate is “tentatively” coming to the conclusion in compliance that there is “Objective Basis for Morality.”