Objective morality exist, Top Down (God) vs Bottoms Up (Natural)

I'll begin by thanking Pro for his opening argument. Thank you Pro. As outlined in round 1, I will present no rebuttal's at this time. I will simply argue for what I call the Bottoms Up approach to morality. In rounds 3 and 4 I will present the problems with authoritarian morality and it's fundamentally subjective nature. We begin this debate with the intent to establish a system that can give us a way to objectively answer, "Is that moral or immoral?" The desire to achieve an objective moral standard is a desire to answer moral questions with what we can determine as the correct answer. As an example, "Is theft wrong?" Pro would answer this with a, "Theft is immoral because God says theft is immoral." My opponent says I cannot answer this from an objectively true position without appealing to an authority, God. By the end of this round, that will be shown to be false. Both my opponent and I think there is an objective moral truth regarding this question and other moral questions. Pro asserts that the Christian god is this foundation of morality. I will argue for a different foundation. One that I intend to show gives us greater moral clarity and greater power to evaluate moral questions. What do I intend to ground this system in? I intend to ground this system in harm. I will argue that harm is objectively bad. I will argue that we can build a comprehensive moral system off of that foundation. This moral system will give us a direct path to answering moral questions in a direct manner without appealing to the opinion of a deity, or those who claim to represent said deity. I intent to support this claim from two primary positions. One is that our biology makes the statement that harm is bad. This removes subjective human preferences from the question. Two, I will then apply reason and logic to this biological statement in hopes of determining if the statement is correct or not. If I can do this successfully, we will end up with an objective statement on harm. This objective statement on harm will be the foundation of our objective moral system. I will work from the perspective that we agree that reason and logic are powerful tools to discover what is likely to be true. We all apply reason and logic to our lives every day, logically thinking our way through problems, reasoning our way to conclusions, any individual doing a debate uses it to argue their position and against their opponents. Immanuel Kant, "All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends in reason. There is nothing higher than reason." [1] There should be no objection that reason and logic are strong tools in search of what is likely true. A few final things on morality. I think most people would agree, including my opponent, that a positive moral choice is a good choice. Good meaning it promotes some greater quality of life. Donating to charity would be considered a positive moral choice. A negative moral choice (immoral) would naturally be considered the opposite. An immoral choice reduces the quality of life for perhaps myself, others, or the overall environment. Immoral actions generate negative effects. Moral actions generate positive effects. Amoral actions have no significant effects. My opponent should be in agreement with this. He believes God is good. God makes decrees that promote goodness. God is a positive moral being. I would also like to make a distinction between "socially acceptable" and "morality." I think the difference is slight, but an important one to address. It might not be socially acceptable to rarely bath. But it isn't immoral to rarely bath. It might not be socially acceptable for a man to wear make up. But, it isn't immoral for a man to wear make up. Objective morality removes the opinion from agents that have opinions. Both Pro and I intend to establish objective moral standards outside human opinion. Someone may say, "I think killing is good. Can you prove me wrong without invoking opinion?" For Pro, "It doesn't matter what your opinion on killing is. God says it's wrong. So it is wrong." My response, "It doesn't matter what your opinion on killing is. Harm is bad. Killing is harm. Killing is bad." Objective morality removes opinion. (a careful reader should already notice problems with the authoritarian system) Harm as the Foundation for Objective Morality, the argument. The Biological Statement. Our biology makes a statement regarding harm. As you've guessed by now, that statement is that harm is bad. As an individual, I might take the counter position. Harm isn't bad. Our question, who is correct? My subjective position on harm, or my biology's objective perspective on harm, or perhaps neither. Hopefully the following example will answer this question for us. Tim doesn't believe in objective moral truths. Tim argues that harm is subjective. Let's put Tim's perspective to a test. We happen to have a fire burning. We ask Tim to place his hand in the fire. If harm is subjective, it is according to Tim, Tim should be able to place his hand in the fire and make some kind of statement, "See harm isn't bad." Tim's biology will be in incredible disagreement with him. Tim's biology will begin experiencing harm, it will notify Tim through pain, and demand Tim remove his hand. Tim's subjective view on harm will be overruled by Tim's biologically objective perspective on harm. Tim will be forced to remove his hand, regardless of Tim's opinion. For the sake of argument, let's say Tim could resist this commandment and keep his hand in the fire. What will happen? Wounds will open up on Tim's hand. It will begin to bleed. Tim will die from shock or blood loss. Tim's quality of life has been effected in a negative way by Tim's subjective opinion regarding harm. Tim's biological opinion, had Tim listened to it, would've prevented harm and saved Tim's life. As you can see, this leads us to an obvious question. Is life preferable to death? The Reason and logic portion. If we can answer this question, we will know which was objectively correct, Tim's subjective perspective or Tim's objective biological perspective. I will give four reasons why there should be no objections to the view that life is preferable to death. One, Pro holds a theological commitment to the claim life is preferable to death. He should be in agreement. Two, biology has two fundamental goals, life and then reproduction. The first being needed for the second. Biology holds the perspective life is preferable to death. Three, the word preferable implies a comparison. We have much information regarding life and no or nearly no information regarding death. We cannot compare life to death. If we cannot compare the two, we cannot argue that death is preferable to life. Four, all of us have weighed in on this already. We are all here. You are reading this. Every person reading this has voted for life being preferable to death. With life being preferable to death established we can see which perspective is correct. Tim's subjective position on harm or his biology's objective opinion? Well needless to say, Tim's biology has gotten it right. Tim's has behaved in an irrational way. Tim's subjective perspective has lead Tim to harm himself, this has resulted in Tim's death. The counter to that is that Tim's biology has behaved in a rational way. It warned Tim of harm. Had Tim listened this would've save Tim's life. Therefore we can safely conclude harm is objectively bad. Hopefully I've presented a strong case that harm is objectively bad. I've removed it from human opinion by establishing it as a biological statement. I've then applied reason and logic to this statement in an effort to determine if the biological statement is grounded is a sound conclusion. It is. From the position that harm is objectively bad we can build a objective moral system. Within any given set of choices, the choice that does the least amount of harm is the more moral choice. Within any given set of choices, the choice that does the most good (good being opposite of bad, harm being bad) is the more moral choice. Let's see how this works in a present topic concerning America. Should gay marriage be permitted? To answer this question we turn to harm. Does gay marriage harm people, or society at large? If the answer to this question is no. Then we have no moral grounds to prohibit it. Which means we should permit it. Conclusion, gay marriage isn't immoral. Can I ground theft in harm and claim it to be objectively bad? My opponent says I cannot. "If pressed further, it becomes apparent that tying their (atheist) belief that stealing is wrong to any ultimate moral value is impossible." Impossible, not so fast. I can say theft is morally wrong because theft is a form of harm to the victim. Theft reduces the resources of the victim. A reduction of resources is a net negative to the victim. Resources can be trade to further improve the quality of life for the individual: money can be traded for medicine, medicine for food, food for shelter, shelter for money, car to get to work, work to attain money, money to buy shelter/food/medicine/power. You see the point. Theft of property is theft of resources. Resources are required to maintain a positive quality of life. The atheist has just grounded theft as being objectively bad in harm being objectively bad. Harm is grounded in life being preferable to death. This we agree on. In this round I've argued for objective morality through a natural perspective. In the following rounds I will continue to support this. I will also turn my attention to authoritarian morality and it's inherently subjective nature. Back to Pro. 1. http://www.brainyquote.com...