There is no universal moral standard.

Thanks to Pro for a spirited debate. I think it was well worth the lengthy arguments. I will first address Pro's three summary issues, then return my ten items, for Pro have little response. 1. Pro claims that because there is no universal agreement on moral issues that therefore it cannot be that morality is genetically based. I addressed that point redundantly (notably in my points 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7). Citing the lack of universal acceptance of the UN Declaration adds no additional logic to Pro's argument. My contention has been that morality is based upon the genetic nature of mankind, and that the genetics include predispositions to protect one's self, family, and tribe. Much of the time there is no conflict among those instincts. Thus we see virtually universal moral condemnation of murder for personal gain, and we see nearly universal moral approval of a right to self-defense. The "interesting" moral variations occur when there are conflicting moral values between loyalty to self and loyalty to society. Over time, civilization has settled many of these conflicts by some combination of reason and pragmatism. The slavery issue has been resolved, virtually universally, in favor of personal freedom. the nature of mankind dictates many moral principles, but it has taken time to understand the nature of mankind. Some thinkers, like the Founders, were ahead of the curve. Even when no resolution on a moral issue has been reached, what is always evident is that the nature of the conflict lies in competing instincts. An authoritarian regime first serves to provide security to the ruling elite, and the regime is inevitably sold to the populace on the grounds that regime brings enhance security to the society. If the subjugated populace comes to believe that the society is more secure with more personal freedom, the regime is doomed. That's the nature most of the dissent with respect to the UN declaration. Acknowledgment of human rights threatens authoritarian regimes, so they don't approve. That does not prove that the citizens of those countries have rejected human rights. Pro's assertion that "not every society in the world shared the same views on human rights." The society does not get to vote at the UN. Only Dear Leader gets to vote. Perhaps, Dear Leader could win a free election, but only if information to the people is controlled so as to maintain the illusion that security requires an authoritarian regime. 2. I had trouble understanding Pro's point about Africa. Pro argues that "moral universalism" causes war and strife, and attempts to use an example of war due to cultural change in Africa to prove the point. The error in Pro's reasoning is that having a universal moral standard does not imply that one must impose that standard on anyone else, so there is no inevitability in a standard causing strife by the imposition. Even if one is thoroughly convinced that, say, free speech is a universal right, there does not follow from that any obligation to fight a war to impose free speech on a country that does not have free speech. That is because initiating a war drains the lives and resources of the country that believes in free speech, and there is no necessary obligation for self-sacrifice in a universal moral code. This was recognized by the American Founders, for example, who while recognizing rights as self-evident also advised against foreign entanglements. In addition, I have maintained throughout that the rights that are evident from the nature of mankind are a relative few: the rights to seek security, freedom, and a few others. Those who understand the universality of a moral code are not obliged to mistakenly claim that it applies to the intricacies of how governments are organized. If one does not believe in a universal moral code, the lack of belief does not prevent wars or strife. In fact, a failure to introspect about the nature of mankind and the rights of man is more likely to lead to strife than having great concern with those rights. 3. Pro reiterates, "I made this argument before, and I'll make it again: the only thing that distinguishes us from our other animal brethren is reason." Pro is wrong in that assertion. Reason is completely subservient to instinctual motivation. If man were purely reasonable, he would do absolutely nothing. He would have no motivation to protect his community or his family or himself. He would not want security or prosperity or happiness. He would not want to be free or to understand the world around him. He would not even want to survive. All of the desires derive from instinct. Reference to other species proves that instincts depend upon how a species is constituted. It is easy to imagine humans still having reasoning ability, but being driven by instincts more akin to bears (anti-social) or caribou (completely tribal). Pro is thus wrong that the only distinguishing characteristic is reasoning ability. Reasoning ability in man is used to recognize a moral code that is consistent with man's nature, a nature that has both self-centered and social instincts. Thus, for example, a right to self-defense is recognized virtually universally among societies as a consequence of the instinct for individual self-preservation. The logic of the moral code so derived is transcendental because the genetics that encode human nature change too slowly to see on the scale of civilizations. The complex social/anti-social nature of humankind means that moral conflicts will arise, and that the resolution of those conflicts are often controversial. Nonetheless, the basic morality is clear and over time more issues have been resolved. Slavery has been found to be properly classified as immoral as society has better understood the nature of man. Returning to earlier points in the debate, Pro has made no specific response to my enumerated arguments 1, 3, 4, and 6, but argued generally about the subjects as I rebutted above. Pro made no rebuttal at all to points 2 (that murder was misdefined by Pro to support a false argument), 5 (that societies are converging on universal moral principles, not diverging as Pro claimed), 7 (that a right to self-defense is universally asserted), 8 (that moral standards are principles, not implementation mechanisms), 9 (that Pro is implying universal standards in giving examples she judges to be good and bad), and 10 (that a lack of a universal standard implies one cannot argue logically and passionately about what is right; Pro denied the argument but gave no counter argument). All the enumerate arguments had been raised earlier in the debate. So where do we stand with respect to the assertion of "self-evident truths" that all men are created equal and have "unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" Pro mainly argues that because there is no universal agreement on how those unalienable rights ought to be achieved through a detailed moral code, that those rights do not flow self-evidently from the nature of man. I argue that conflicts over the implementation invariably reassert the fundamental rights, and that moreover social evolution is producing a converging understanding of the rights that are derived from the nature of mankind. Pro has ignored many of my arguments in favor of merely restating contrary conclusions. The resolution is negated.