Morality > Nature

Humans, Nature, & MoralityPro brings up some basic definitions of "nature" and "moral". From these definitions, the Pro concludes that because nature means anything BUT humans, and morals affect JUST humans, they are therefore independent. The problem with the given definition of nature is that it doesn't account for "humans or human creations" that are affected or shaped by nature. Architecture, art, music, human knowledge, and a whole lot more have been shaped by and rely on nature. This is the point that the Pro's rebuttal fails to account for.Sure, morality is concerned with principles of right and wrong that shape human behavior, but the question remains: where do these principles come from? This is a question that continues to plague philosophers to this very day. Are morals derived solely out of human thought, such as what moral anti-realism claims? Or our moral principles influenced by objective moral properties that exist in nature, as what moral realism claims? As we see from my citation in round one, 56% of philosophers support moral realism - the idea that our morals are simply born out of human preference. Can we reasonably conclude that these philosophers, along with notable theories such as Natural Law and Kantian Ethics, are all misguided simply based on the definitions the Pro has provided?Lack Of ClarityOf course not. Currently, the Pro has provided little in terms of clarity to whether or not morality is objectively or subjectively derived. I've already demonstrated how the definitions the Pro offers doesn't address this question. For thee Pro's example of America and Great Britain, the very being of America wasn't dependent on Great Britain once America declared independence. If Great Britain magically disappeared in 1776, the US would have magically disappeared with it. It's like a child and a parent: at some point that child will become independent of the parent. But can either the parent or the child become independent of things that enable and sustain their existence, such as a heart and lungs? More importantly, the "America & Great Britain" example doesn't even relate to my original point that my "Car & Engine" example demonstrates. Once again, "A is greater than B" type of statements have two conditions to satisfy: 1. A can't be the same as B, and 2. A & B must be mutually independent. The Pro isn't making the claim that "America is greater than Great Britain", and therefore has no link to my original point. More so, even if this claim was being made, it would satisfy these two conditions. America and Great Britain are obviously different kinds of the same thing: countries. If I were to claim, "independent countries are better than sovereign nations", then we'd run into the problem I'm highlighting with the second condition. SummaryAt this point, we still lack the necessary clarity on whether moral principles are derived from objective or subjective properties. The Pro's rebuttal offers no reasoning as to who morality is solely born from and influenced by human preference, and looking back to my first attack on the Pro in round one, it's extremely unlikely that we will get any definitive proof or reasoning. Whether morality is influenced by moral properties that exist in nature, or just in the human mind, is matter of continuing contention for philosophers, scientists, theologians theologians and debate students alike. Without this necessary clarity, we can't even begin to determine whether morality is greater than nature, when the possibility remains that nature itself contributes to what our very morals are. The Pro provides no answer for how we can "fix" the very thing that influences our morals, if morality is dependent on nature. If nature needs "fixing", wouldn't that suggest that our morals also need "fixing"? The Pro has also provided no answer as to how we can pin down "slippery" morals if morality is only influenced by human preference. Once again, if morality is created solely out of human thought, how do we decide which is the correct moral theory to "fix" nature with? Morality and ethics are diverse subjects. Many cultures have different concepts of right and wrong. Even different individuals live by different moral codes. Which moral code should we use to judge and fix nature with? How can we insure that nature will remain "fixed" when our moral codes are capable of changing as quickly as the human mind?Ultimately, we still lack the clarity necessary to determine whether objective or subjective properties shape our moral principles. The Pro provides no answer to this issue nor to the challenges I brought up at the end of the last round (and summarized at the end of this round). Without these answers, Pro can neither satisfy the burden of proof, nor demonstrate how morality can be used to "fix" nature if our moral codes are at the whim of human preference.