Actual Fun

Here's my Neg case: If morality is an illusion, where does that take us? For example, Hitler did nothing wrong, as there is no right or wrong... I can run over school children with my car, and hell, don't blame me, there's no such thing as right or wrong... You can't run society without morality. At its core, morality is the way we must act in order to survive, as an individual, and as a species. If morality is just some illusion, we cannot have an orderly society, we won't live. Furthermore, morality is an abstract concept, that is, it isn't based off of perceptions, only logic. You might say "No! It's based off instincts, and a 'superficial perception,'" but, you are wrong. Morality is like math, our logic leads to its conclusions. For example, Kant used nothing but logic to show that his system of morality was the way to go. (He made one small fallacy, but nonetheless, he still based it off of logic.) J.S. Mill also used logic (also with a fallacy) to prove that his form of utilitarianism is correct. It's logic. Rebuttals: "Not only do good and bad only have meaning in being the opposite of each other, there is really no fundamental difference in their concepts, since each concept is essentially being the opposite of the other. This assertion may seem odd to some, who will without a doubt in their mind lay out to me what is 'good' and what is 'bad'. But how are these defined? A man might tell me that consuming the flesh of a gorilla is wrong, but also tell me that recreational sex is wrong. But what fundamental connection is their [sic.] between monkey-eating and birth control? …NONE." Well, that man has one dumb moral system, and is probably really ignorant. I'm guessing that man may also tell you that man made global warming is real, because it was warm today, and that the sun orbits the earth (20% of adult Americans would agree with him) because you can see it move in the sky. Does that mean that science is false? No! And also, with your opposites ideas, well think about this. All true and false are are opposites. Does that mean they are an illusion too? "The only thing that defines what the rules of morality are, is a bunch of things called Homo sapiens, that live on a inconceivably small dot of existence called 'earth'. A visiting alien that might come would be perplexed by the way these monkeys are irrationally opposed to certain ideas." Although a visiting alien is probably impossible (if one subscribes to the physics of Mr. Einstein), the only irrational oppositions to certain ideas are from those monkeys that don't understand logic, and flinch at even the simplest modus tollens. "And since all morality is, is a superficial perception of humans, it is therefore an illusion." Only to those of us too ignorant to think about ethics. "For morality to have substance in any form exempt the human thoughts there must be some sort of universal, unseen entity such as a god which would decide what is moral and immoral. This is referred to as a god, and this concept does not have any sort of steady ground or basis. Therefore, it would be best to exclude this concept from the debate." That would also mean that math, science, and modern philosophy also are meaningless. I won't make this a pointless debate about theism and atheism as well. "The other way for morality to exist is if there was such a thing as a goal. There are no goals beyond animal minds, however, and therefore could be defined as an illusion. If there were some sort of fundamental goal or purpose to the dead physical matter of the world, than morality could exist, but this would imply a god, and should therefore be dismissed." Ever read Immanuel Kant's Critique of Practical Reason? If not do so, for he will surely change your mind.