Moral belief is not rational

Con: "I'd like to draw readers' attention to the fact that pro's entire argument begs the question. He says I equate social behavior with morality - that's exactly right. That's what morality IS." How is social behavior rational? "We have good evolutionary evidence to suppose that what we call morality is ultimately just social behavior that human beings have learned in order to survive." Do we? To suppose, or prove? Is Pro suggesting that learned behavior is intrinsically rational? Con: "If he wants to avoid begging the question he must either agree that morality is a social behavior or give us a positive argument for why that is not the case. Unless and until he does, his argument is circular and can be easily dismissed." Where does social behavior come from? In asserting that social behavior IS morality I would ask for evidence that societal behavior itself is reason-based. "Opinions are emotion-based? All of them?" Semantic distraction: I did not express that all opinions are emotion based (even though I will attest to poor phrasing). Con: "As I've already said, moral beliefs are evolutionary social behaviors, not emotions." Con quoting Pro: ""Our morals are not our emotions; we must be taught to be moral"" Con"s statement is implying that I have expressed the idea that moral beliefs are emotions, which I have clearly not done. I would also suggest that Con provide evidence supporting the implication that if "moral beliefs are evolutionary social behavior" they are somehow rational. Con: "Pro provides no evidence whatever for believing that we must be taught to be moral." How does one require evidence for a belief? More to the point: How could we become moral without learning to be; through language or social evolution? Con: "We know of no society that believes e.g. killing children for fun is morally right. How can it be that every society has come to the same basic conclusions about what is generally right and wrong if they all had to be taught? Who taught the first one?" Con is appealing to majority by suggesting that societal belief makes something right or wrong. I would argue that, unless an objective arbitrator of "right and wrong" can be appealed to, only one individual can contest all such beliefs, as they are non-rational. Con: "Wrong" means whatever we define it to mean. We define certainly socially disadvantageous behaviors as wrong - that's what it means." If wrong means whatever "we" define it to mean than what makes one person"s (or even the majority of people"s) definition accurate over even one which may contest it? Unless Pro wishes to bring a universal arbitrator into the debate, I will argue that "wrong" is simply a non-rational aspect of social belief. Belief in right and wrong is not rational; it is an appeal to some form of absolute. Con: "I'd ask pro to define 'health' and tell us how we know health is a good thing. It can't be reason-based - we only value health because we value our survival. But isn't that an emotional appeal? How can pure reason justify wanting to survive?" I never stated that health [Merriam-Webster: the condition of being well or free from disease] was a "good thing", or that people value it rationally. I am using it as a rational factual term conserving the human condition as opposed to the term "wrong" which I is nor reason-based. Con is confusing the argument by concentrating almost exclusively on semantic aspects as opposed to addressing the actual claim concerning reason and moral belief.