Objective Morality

As Con has done an excellent job of breaking my argument down to its main points, I will offer rebuttals on those same points. (1) Society is a motivator and a cause of morality, but cultures and rules have no impact on what morality is itself I would like to first point out that Con repeatedly says "good and evil". But "evil" is not the same as "bad". That said, the argument I made in my last round does provide an overall, across the board, sense of right and wrong or good and bad. That sense is whether something is beneficial, or detrimental, to society. Objectivity doesn't consider individual existence, but it does consider circumstance. In the two societies identified by Con, the circumstances are different, and therefore morality can remain objective, while applying in different ways. Con states, "murder for the sake of murder is wrong", and this I can agree with. But let's not confuse murder with killing. Killing is only murder when it is unlawful, or unacceptable. However, I believe killing for the sake of killing is also wrong, as it diminishes society without alternative benefit. Society 1:As you say, Society 1 is a primitive society. It is in the early stages of its development. But the killing described is not done for the sake of killing. It is a way of establishing dominance and boundaries. The ones who come out on top will be held in higher regard than other members of the society. This helps to establish a hierarchy, which can then evolve to a governing entity. And so, while primitive, this killing is moral because it benefits the society as a whole. You also say that the it is acceptable for these for a man t kill his wife in this society. But that doesn't mean this killing is a moral act. If that woman were contributing nothing to the society, and the society is suffering for keeping her alive, then it would be moral. This, however, is not the case. In regards to reproduction, women bring an inherent benefit to society that is greater than mans. Any society will die out without reproducing, this cannot be argued against. One man can impregnate ten women in a short time, whereas the same is not true for ten men and one woman. Therefore, unless that woman is detrimental to society in some way, killing her is an immoral act. Society 2: As you say, in Society 2, America, we have evolved beyond a primitive society. This just means American society is at a later stage of development than the above society. Women are no longer considered inferior in America, nor should they be, but there was a time when they were. This happens consistently in developing societies, because a primitive society has an easier time developing when one gender has more say. Once that society develops to the point where that inequality is no longer beneficial, as American society did, all that is left is discord, which on its own is harmful to society. So, in these examples, while the moral value of certain actions can change due to circumstance, morality itself remains objective in whether these actions are right or wrong, and good or bad, for society. (2) Morality would not exist without a societyI'm not saying that society decides what morality is. I'm saying morality is inapplicable without society. However, with further thought it seems I am wrong in this, and morality can exist without society. This still does not change what morality is. In the case of a lone man, living in the wilderness, a moral act would then be anything that benefits that him, and an immoral act would be anything detrimental to him. For instance, killing a deer when in need of food would be a moral act, as he could then feed himself. However, killing a deer and leaving it to rot in the woods would be an immoral act, as it would be detrimental to his well being. Not only would that be one less deer to hunt when the he does need food in the future, but it would be cause for other deer to stay away, and then be a considerably large lack of deer to hunt. I'll also peremptorily dismiss any argument that this is not objective because a lone man is of independent existence. Morality has not changed in consideration of this individual. It is simply being applied to him and his circumstance. (3) The size of a society makes morality more complexThis is not favorable to Con, nor does it change what morality is. All it means is that it becomes more difficult to determine whether an action is moral or immoral, or neither. As I said earlier, objective morality can consider circumstance while remaining objective. (4) Morality is directly relevant to how it will effect a society. I believe my above arguments refute Cons claims here, but to reiterate, objective morality can consider circumstance while remaining objective. Beyond that, let's take another look at what I stated in the previous round. "Any action, at any given time, is going to result is one of three things. It will either help, hurt, or have no effect on, society. Whether or not we know which result that action will end in is irrelevant. If that action is taken, the outcome will be the same, regardless of our knowledge. Any subjectivity then is not really subjectivity. It's simply guesswork due a lack of knowledge, and is being mistaken as subjectivity. " Con admits that the above is true. He then goes on to say that a lack of knowledge make it subjective. So, basically, what Con is saying is: If that action is taken, the outcome will be the same, regardless of our knowledge. Any subjectivity then is not really subjectivity. It's simply guesswork due a lack of knowledge, and is being mistaken as subjectivity. .. But, regardless, it's still subjectivity. I would ask that Con either clarify, or dismiss, his argument on this point, as it does not currently make sense.