There is no objective basis for morality.

I am glad Pro accepts the Laws of Nature are “objective” and we are both interested in the subject of morality. Throughout the course of this debate Pro's focus was disagreeing with my perspective on morality and offer little contribution to his perspective why “There is no Objective Basis for Morality” the topic of this debate. I was hoping to learn more on the subject relative to his perspective.In any event, my usage of a dictionary, selecting a definition out of a list of definitions is proper. That is how one uses a dictionary. My selection is correct relative to the binary nature of morality as supported by those dictionary references. But I hope this debate does not digress into the proper usage of a dictionary. The setup of this debate made the topic of morality one dimensional. A metaphysical subjective ethical code could not be established due to Pro's refusal of social system development. Living alone on an island does not yield the evolution of, or development of, a civil society dependent on some ethical code to remain civil. This was established by Pro killing the castaway, the only possible agent for social development. Pro's goal was to live alone and to accomplish this goal, Pro had to morally follow the “objective” physical Law in Nature, and using Pro's words, “I strangled the man preventing him from getting oxygen and because the laws of nature dictate that a human needs oxygen in order to live and I deprived the man of oxygen he died.” Therefore, Pro follow the Laws of Nature to “deprived the man of oxygen” in the pursuit of his goal. Since Pro is the only one to live on the island the only code he is forced to follow is the “objective” code set by the Laws of Nature, he has no other alternative. Relative to Pro's goals he uses his Unalienable Rights (life's bio-program), to improve and sustain his "Life", having freedom (“Liberty”), in “the pursuit of” survival as in: “gathering and/or hunting food, … collecting and storing fresh water, … construct shelter, … provide luxuries and means of entertainment;” hence, “Happiness.” In order to maintain such accomplishments he must morally follow a physical “objective” code (the Laws of Nature). Pro's interface is one with nature, not one with humanity. And within this environment Pro must morally follow the Laws of Nature, otherwise, there is no food, no storing of water, no shelter, no luxuries, no entertainment, etc. If Pro kept that castaway alive, this debate will have an added dimension to morality. That is, the “objective” (via the physical Constructal Law) in the development of an ethical code to keep the social group of two (Pro and the castaway) alive and civil, supporting the “objective” of a “universal morality.” The first paragraph in Stanford University's Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes reference to a “universal morality.” http://plato.stanford.edu... “What “morality” is taken to refer to plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct put forward by a society results in a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings. This descriptive use of “morality”is the one used by anthropologists when they report on the morality of the societies that they study. Recently, some comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt, Hauser, De Waal) have taken morality, or a close anticipation of it, to be present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates but not limited to them. “Morality” has also been taken to refer to any code of conduct that a person or group takes as most important.”A “universal morality” that transcends humanity in group formation in packs of animals, flocks of birds, schools of fish, etc.The scientific community is examining the dependency of morality within physical science, in January, 2015 Scientific American's article Michael Shermer focus on the individual’s “freedom” within social groups, stating the following excerpts:http://www.scientificamerican.com...“Attentiveness, decision making, and the emotional capacity to feel and suffer are found across the branches of the evolutionary tree. This is what brings all humans and many nonhuman animals into our moral sphere.”“We are a social species, but we are first and foremost individuals within social groups and therefore ought not to be subservient to the collective.”“This drive to survive is part of our essence, and therefore the freedom to pursue the fulfillment of that essence is a natural right, by which I mean it is universal and inalienable and thus not contingent only on the laws and customs of a particular culture or government.” Shermer's reference to “Universal and inalienable” simply applies to life's Unalienable Rights as stated at the beginning of this debate being a manifestation of the physical Constructal Law. Since the empirical across different species maintains a “universal morality” and the symmetry to the Constructal Law, the “Objective Basis for Morality” simply is that Morality is part of the Laws of Nature, which Pro agrees those Laws are "objective." As for those individual subjective elements Pro claims in Round 1relative to, “individual belief, or opinion, or preference, or some other non-objective source,” actually pertains to some "individual" code, not morality. An ethical code, or moral code or someone's “belief” (like the Ten Commandments), etc. are all codes in ethics generated by the binary nature of morality--the mutual positive feedback from a relationship between living systems. A mutual positive feedback over time, generates a code of ethics for humans to maintain survival of a civil society, or the cues of survival within packs of animals, flocks of birds, schools of fish, etc. However, because of the debate's one dimensional setup, we have not had the opportunity to discuss morality as a function of group formation. I realize that social group formation relative to morality was not part of this debate's setup, but I bring this point up because Pro is interested in the topic of morality. I hope the references and videos I presented here will give Pro a different outlook on morality through the prism of science relative to the traditional metaphysics view on the topic. I hope at this point, the “Objective Basis for Morality” is clear when dissecting the mechanics of morality relative to life's Unalienable Rights, within group formation, a manifestation of the Constructal Law. Morality and some code of ethics are two different manifestations of the same concept. That is, morality is the genesis of a code of ethics in time, at the same time, following a code of ethics, one is moral. In conclusion, Morality is “Objective,” code of ethics is subjective. In Pro's island case. The only code to morally follow to get anything done, is the "objective" Laws of Nature.