Morality, like gravity, is a physical force in nature

From Con's response, he clearly missed Pro's point about Right and Wrong being the primitives of Morality. Here is a summary of my previous round.Right embraces positive-feedback, as Wrong induces negative-feedback. In other words, the moral thing to do is to embrace positive-feedback, doing the right thing. The immoral thing to do is to embrace negative-feedback, doing the wrong thing.It is simply a binary relationship. Moral is right resulting in positive-feedback. Immoral is wrong resulting in negative-feedback.Relative to the life's primitives (Takac), once alive, Life, has the freedom, in the pursuit of survival (positive-feedback); otherwise, there is no life. http://www.bookdaily.com... Survival is positive-feedback, the moral thing to do, and survival is a prerequisite for the pursuit of any objectives within the domain of existence. On the human level, these life primitives have symmetry with Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Between humans, the pursuit of mutual Happiness (the right thing to do) within a group is the attractive force of morality. Attraction brings the members of the group together. Immorality is a repulsive force having the tendency of dispersing the group.Con started with Observation 1“The concept of wrong involves going against the flow”“The concept of right involves going with the flow”Pro's concept of right and wrong are summarized as primitives above. My apologies for not making that point clearer in the previous round.Relative to “flow,” the Constructal Law, "reveals that the movement towards harmony, toward flowing together and in balance, is the central tendency of design in nature" (Adrian Bejan).http://www.amazon.com... The flow of animate harmony is a manifestation from the moral pursuit of mutual positive-feedback between living systems.Since life is a product of the Laws of Nature and flow systems, Pro, in Round 2, used examples of life going against, and going with the flow. Going against the flow, is going against the tendency of design in nature, generally results in negative-feedback. Within a culture, going against the flow is going against the norms of that culture, often considered immoral or doing the wrong thing. Going with the flow is the tendency of design in nature, doing the right thing relative to cultural norms. As with everything in life, there are exceptions.Con pointed out that “Pro violates Hume's Law.” Hume's Law is metaphysical, falling outside the parameters of this debate (http://plato.stanford.edu... ). The focus of this debate, are on those repeatable patterns, of living-systems, presenting the construct of morality being part of the physical Laws of Nature.Con stated, “What reason do we have for believing that all societal outcomes of the Constructal Law are moral or that some outcomes are not morally preferable to others?”The Constructal Law deals with the evolution of flow. Not all evolutionary results produce “preferable” outcomes; hence, extinction or the tendency to improve those outcomes that “are not morally preferable to others,” in the course of evolution.According to Con:“2) Pro grossly misinterprets the Constructal Lawa) Constructal Law is devoid of the value judgments Pro inserts”It would seem that Adrian Bejan supports Pro's assertion, according to Bejan: “Good ideas travel and persist. They keep on traveling. This is why culture is a constructal design [Constructal Law]--a tapestry of morphing linkages in our minds and on the globe--all superimposed on the same area (the globe) and in the same volume (the brain). As such, culture is the same kind of design as the tapestry of vascular architectures, animate and inanimate, all superimposed on the Earth’s surface.”“Good ideas” evolve from the moral desire of mutual positive-feedback within social groups. The migration (“keep on traveling”) of cultural “good ideas” are “value judgments” during the “tapestry of morphing linkages in our minds and on the globe...” Con continued with item “b):”“b) The Constructal Law allows for indeterminate outcomes; it does not necessitate the “moral” outcomes Pro describes.”Again “good ideas,” within a culture, are a manifestation of morality.According to Con, “Constructal Law allows for indeterminate outcomes;” Not true! According to Bejan:“Life is movement. Every living system performs better when the power that is required for maintaining its movement is minimized. Just as lightning bolts and river basins should generate treelike structures to reduce thermodynamic imperfection and increase flow access, animals should have evolved to cover a greater distance for less effort, which means per unit of useful energy derived from food.”That is deterministic, the optimization of energy in the pursuit of an objective. For example, the human was successful in fulfilling optimization of food acquisition, resulting in “covering a greater distance for less effort” by driving one’s automobile to a “fast food” restaurant with the drive-through option, effectively optimizing the human energy and time in the pursuit for food relative to our cavemen ancestors. The development of such “fast food” infrastructure is from the moral pursuit of mutual positive-feedback through a market system between supply and demand. Morality is the engine for living-systems following Constructal Law.Con raised a good point in the following:“Moreover, empirics affirm that different societies respond to tyranny in different ways. The ... the Arab Spring ... transition from despotic to democratic societies is not a foregone conclusion... Many societies have transitioned away from freedom, as the Roman empire did ... Republic to monarch ... after ... Caesar.”Relative to the Arab Spring, forcing the culture of democracy is taking away the freedom of choice of those desiring a theocracy to rule, the power of myth. Moreover, the Mid East has issues in morally forming a civil society resisting the “movement towards harmony, toward flowing together and in balance, is the central tendency of design in nature" (Bejan). From the immoral repulsive force having the tendency of dispersing the Muslims into conflicting factions, for example, the Sunnis and Shiites to name a few. The Muslim conflicts, throughout the ages, will only record the Arab Spring as an entry on the following list: http://wikibin.org...The cause of the Roman Empire transitioning from a republic to monarch has historian debate ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). Focusing on the writings who lived during that time, Juvenal written on the obsession of free “bread and circuses,” while rulers seeking only to gratify those obsessions. Sounds a lot like what is happening in the US today of free food and entertainment for those on the dole. Free money, to many, is the ultimate state of freedom, for the population on the dole, where the working-class must subsidize those on the dole via the tyranny of government through taxation. Here in the US, such immorality is causing dispersion between those on the dole and the working-class, while the government slowly moves from a republic to an oligarch.Macro currents causing immoral friction within the flow of groups is part of social evolution, with the desire for moral resolution to preserve the life of the group; on the other hand, extinction is also part of evolution. Extinction is no stranger to living-systems under the shadow of the Constructal Law during the evolution of life. Con went on to say:“The Constructal Law doesn't selectively apply to human behavior; ... This means Pro has no grounds to claim that any existing society is more or less moral than any other ...”Human behavior follows Constructal Law as mentioned above by the migration of “Good ideas” according to Bejan. As for a society being “more or less moral than any other,” Con is confusing morality with social values. Morality is a force in nature that brings into existence social values. Comparing social values from different cultures will often provoke immoral feelings; hence, the often repulsive nature of cultural conflicts.Con's item 3:“3) Pro's concept of “right” and “wrong” leads to bizarre moral judgments.”The concept of “right” and “wrong” is a function of the mutual result between the Unalienable Rights of the individuals within a group. A moral judgment embraces the Unalienable Rights of the members within a group (going with the flow). An immoral judgment detracts from it (going against the flow). There is nothing “bizarre” about this simple relationship. As for a “massive array of behavior ... of ... immoral” we simply have little to no flow, but forms of social chaos as in the above list of Muslim conflicts.Con went on:“For example, ... Bejan describes how specific paddling techniques best go with the flow for competitive swimmers [1]. Does this mean that competitive swimmers who use different techniques are immoral?”If the different paddling technique yielded a win, that is positive-feedback, morally adding knowledge to the evolution of “specific paddling techniques.”Con continues with a “crack-addict” example. It is obvious addiction embraces positive-feedback for the user, while in many cases, such addiction goes against establish social norms causing negative-feedback, within the group, going against the flow.I'm running out of space with such good comments from Con.For “Universal Right” see: http://www.bookdaily.com...As for morality being a physical force, morality is positive-feedback, an attractive physical force, between living-systems.