There is no objective basis for morality.

Con's opening argument is that killing the man on the beach is immoral "because if you gain nothing from killing someone, and that person loses everything, it is a net loss. Objectively, a net loss is bad. Actions should not be taken by any individual that do not benefit himself, and certainly not ones that not only present no self-gain but also present the loss of a life. " I reject Con's argument for several reasons. First, Con has provided no evidence that "Objectively, a net loss is bad. " Due to the lack of evidence, this is just Con's opinion that Con expects the reader to accept as correct simply because Con wrote it. Why is a net loss bad? As far as I can tell, the only objective statement that one can make about a net loss is that it is a net loss. Once one attaches a label, such as good or bad, it becomes a subjective statement that is not independent of individual thought and does not have reality independent of the mind. It may be Con's opinion that a net loss is bad and it may be someone else's opinion that a net loss is not bad, but it is just opinion not an objective statement. Since "a net loss is bad" is the premise on which Con determines morality, Con needs to provide evidence that the premise is objective and not just opinion. Second, Con's next statement, "Actions should not be taken by any individual that do not benefit himself" suffers from the same failings as Con's previous statement. Con has provided no evidence for this statement therefore it is just opinion and not an objective statement. Third, even if Con can objectively show that a net loss is bad or that actions should not be taken by any individual that do not benefit himself, Con needs to demonstrate that whatever definitions Con is using for terms like "net loss" and "benefit" are objective and not subjective. For example, 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 so, according to Con's logic, John Doe's actions would be moral. Of course, John Doe's actions would not be moral if Con's use of the word "benefit" means something different, but without an objective definition we have no way of knowing. Con goes on and makes this statement: "However, I must point out that killing someone who does not present and actual danger to you that is equivalent to murder is irrational and unjust. " Much like the earlier statements made by Con there has been no evidence presented that demonstrates that this statement is anything other than Con's opinion. The only objective statement you can make about one man killing another man, on the beach or in general, is that one man killed another man. Once you attach a label, like murder or irrational or unjust, to the act you move from objective to subjective. Con even demonstrates as much by stating that killing someone is moral if "you believe he presents a lethal threat to your well being" or it is moral if "killing someone is your only means of surviving". Depending on the label that Con chooses to attach to the act of killing a man, murder, self-defense, etc. , killing a man becomes either moral or immoral. So that raises the question of how do you determine which label to attach and how do you know that the label you attach is the correct label? As I pointed out in an earlier debate, one man's murder is another man's self-defense is another man's patriotic duty so how does one know the difference? Given the lack of any evidence presented, it appears the determination of morality is not objective rather it is just opinion. Con continues with, "A human life is regarded as self-owned" and "However, we can agree (hopefully) that man does not live for the sake of his neighbor. It seems you must support that ideal. " Once again I must point out that Con has offered no evidence to support either of these statements. I could just as easily state, "A human life is not regarded as self-owned" and "However, we can agree (hopefully) that man does live for the sake of his neighbor. It seems you must support that ideal" and my statements would carry as much weight as Con's statements because I have presented no supporting evidence. Con needs to objectively demonstrate that human life is regarded as self-owned and that man does not live for the sake of his neighbor for these statements to be considered anything other than opinion. Con's next statement: "Without this idea, the human race could never grow and innovate as quick as it has (or at all). Instead, we would act like animals, killing each other for territory and access to limited natural resources; instead, we have accepted the previous idea of morality, and thus have engaged in civilized competition for the positive creation of wealth and the efficient exploitation of natural resources" appears to show Con's ignorance of human history and the many wars that have been fought and are still being fought and the many people that have been and are still being slaughtered in the quest to secure territory and limited natural resources (I will not waste space citing references for such a vast amount of information since a Google search can provide you with the information). If it is Con's argument that objective morality exists because human life is of the most importance and because of this ideal humans do not kill each other for territory and access to limited natural resources, then it is Pro's position that the argument collapses not only because it is an unsupported opinion but because the evidence provided by human history demonstrates otherwise. Con ends with, "I hope you can present an argument that explains why you think it is alright to murder another human being, and why you think it is a net gain for you, your friends, or anybody at all. " To be clear, it has never been Pro's position that it is alright to murder another human being and I will not be providing any arguments along those lines. If it is Con's interpretation that this debate is about why it is alright or not alright to murder another human being, then that is Con's interpretation of this debate but it is Pro's position that there is no objective basis for morality and the scenario of killing a man is used to provide ease and clarity. Additionally, Con's use of the term "murder", as explained earlier, moves the discussion from the objective to the subjective and does nothing to demonstrate that there is an objective basis for morality. Con's arguments thus far has been to state opinions, expect the reader to accept those opinions as true and correct without any supporting evidence, then to determine that the act of killing the man on the beach was immoral based on Con's unsupported opinions and declare that there is an objective basis for morality. Since opinions are not independent of individual thought nor do they have reality independent of the mind, Con has failed to demonstrate that there is an objective basis for morality and it is still Pro's position that there is not an objective basis for morality; that judging or labeling an action as either moral or immoral is the result of individual belief, or opinion, or preference, or some other non-objective source.