Objective morality does not exist

Pro has vastly misinterpreted my arguments, therefore I will quickly clarify some key points. 1. Rational versus irrational process and effects on objectivity. In my argument (A) I stated that there are two types of irrational people that cannot be used as an example for proof of subjectivity about an objective code. The first, was about mental defects, which affect a person’s rational thought process and reality [1]. The second type of irrational person was defined as a person that can conduct rational thought but still deviates from the moral code. However, just because this person’s mind can conduct rationally, does not mean that their decision was rational, nor does it mean that a fact that they act against is any less valid. By Pro’s own source, any “rational person in any society, even one that has a defective morality, can know the general kinds of actions that morality prohibits, requires, discourages, encourages, and allows” [2]. Meaning even though this person deviates from a code or fact, does not mean that they do not recognize that any deviation is prohibited or discouraged by the code/fact. Hence my example of the smoker. As stated before, a rational person goes through rational process, by assessing risk-reward, based on a self-preservation and happiness model. Those that choose a clearly nonoptimal decision are therefore deemed irrational [3,4]. In the case of the smoker, as shown previously, it is a known fact that risk of smoking far outweighs the any prolonged benefit. Even if a person is “clear” thinking, they make an irrational decision to start smoking in the first place. In light of this decision, smoking is still objectively hazardous to one’s health. Furthermore, I realize that smoking is addictive, however you must consider the onset of addiction. The most current research shows that even though nicotine addiction can occur sooner than years of abuse, it still takes weeks to months to develop symptoms correlated with addiction [5,6]. Thus, the person, by smoking more than once, irrationally made the decision to become a novel smoker to chronic smoker. Pro also states that there are multiple factors that contribute to smoking. Whether it is peer pressure, marketing, or family history these components become stressful on a person, and it has been shown that stress can change your brain and decision making process [7]. By Pro’s definition, the person is not thinking “clearly” and can therefore be considered irrational. Thus this person would not affect the defining definition of what is moral. 2. Subjectivity is spawned by nature and meaningful purpose. As stated previously, I state that subjectivity is based on elements that are found in nature/universe, and a conclusion to a certain situation can vary based on meaningful purpose. I used terrorism to state that it is subjective; while some may think that it is bad, it has meaningful purpose for some through fighting for resources, or patriotism (nepotism). I use this to explain why some may find death or killing of our species as a subjective matter based on situation. That is why I immediately claim that stealing, lying, cheating, and killing are all subjective matters, therefore it would do no good for me to further discuss them if I am trying to show objective morality does exist. 3. Burden of proof lies with Pro. Briefly I will outline some logic: If you say that objective morality does not exist (there is not a factual consensus) then you are implying that all situations have an opposing subjective conclusion. Thus if I were to outline a situation, then it should be up to you to show that there are opposing conclusions. The act of raping a human being has always been punished, and criminalized [8, 9]. However, much of the debate about rape is whether or not rape was committed (see B.2.); and many try to justify rape by arguing the semantics of the outfit or intoxication of the victim, or if the offender considers the victim a human being [10, 11]. Once it is agreed as rape, then it is bad, and there are consequences or at the very least, negative thoughts about the person that committed these acts. In addition, as I stated before, just because a person, without mental defect, acts against the moral code and conducts rape, does not mean that they do not recognize that raping another human being is immoral, or elicits punishment. 4. Pro completely drops one of my contentions: Rape of an infant is objectively a negative (immoral) action. As I stated previously, human infant, cannot consent to any sexual activity, therefore any sexual penetration or act counts as rape. Therefore, rape justifications (semantics) cannot be used in any situation. As I stated previously, it is Pro’s BOP to show that rape of an infant is not seen as factually bad, therefore an immoral act. To highlight this in the last round I even showed how, even amongst other criminals, child molesters are physically or verbally abused. I also stated that while pedophiles are about loving children as if they are in a relationship with an adult, the infant cannot meet any of these requirements and becomes object rather than person, therefore the pedophile becomes an irrational person [12]. If you are not satisfied with that I will give you some other cases, where conviction sentences are pushed to extremes: A man in Ohio was sentenced to death by euthanasia for the rape and death of a 6 month old girl, despite his pleas that he was intoxicated [13]. Jose Luis Aguilar, was asked to be sentenced 40 years over the regular sentencing of his charged crime for death and rape of Serenity Reedy [14]. A man that abused 13 infants was seen as committing “unspeakable crimes,” which is clearly a negative connotation [15]. A judge called stated this offender, “had no limit to the darkness in his heart,” which is another negative connotation pointing toward the act being immoral [16]. When asked to comment about popular notion in prison, many wardens believe that most inmates will see child (not solely infant) abuse as appalling [17]. These are clear examples of a reality, that sexual violation of a child, especially infants, is a heinous, negative, unjust act that does not contain a positive or justifying element. 5. David Hume applies to social concepts that deviate from nature. Simply put, if you are going to talk about money and health there is going to be an is/ought dichotomy, because money is a man made concept that does not always follow natural bounds. This does not mean however that every situation contains a natural fallacy. Also Hume creates a false dilemma, stating that two separate scenarios must either converge on what is and ought to be moral or it is not moral at all. However, whenever these “moral dilemmas” are addressed many have invalid comparisons for morality; simply we believe that two scenarios are equivalent and must have the same moral decision [18]. This does not work since there are multiple levels and types of morality. In the case of infant rape, it is not a good thing to do; it is not practiced in nature amongst other animals, and it should (ought) not be done. I ask that Pro define a situation in which infant rape would have a moral dilemma; and then I will further my arguments on that assessment.Once again I will have to post my sources in the comments section I apologize.