Metaethical Moral Relativism versus Sam Harris

Hi TheOnComingStorm, I have to say, I am a little sad to see this debate end, as you have again proven yourself an entertaining sparing partner. :) Rebuttal #1: Note that within the analogy, it does not require that there is some kind of universal standard to something that is a good movie or bad movie, this I will grant is based upon perception. However, this perception is a reality for when each of us sees a movie, and if every movie is pretty much meaningless and indistinguishable because it ends follows your line of argumentation. Personally, I think you're reading into the analogy a bit much, as it is a very simple analogy to point out the fact that our experience of the world is what truly matters to us, and the fact that these experiences end in no way lessens their value. Also, why would it be necessary for there to be some kind of universal perceiver to continually recognize someone's existence in order for that person's limited existence to be of value? A flower that blooms for a season and still dies is beautiful and valuable regardless of the fact that it's inevitable that it will wilt and die. And it goes double for sentient beings, who have a conscious existence while they exist and therefore sets them apart from all other matter in the universe. If as human beings we do not value the ability to experience the world in which we exist, then why not treat human beings the same as a weed in your garden. Rebuttal #2:Here again, you seem to base "good" and "bad" simply based off of perceptions, and that if there existed a universe in which everyone experiences the greatest amount of suffering, then they would not possibly perceive anything better. This notion is refuted by the following facts, 1) human beings have the ability to conceptualize abstract ideas, therefore it is not unreasonable to believe that people can conceptualize of a universe better or worse than their own in which they exist, and 2) whether or not a person or anyone knows the corect moral answer to a moral issue is irrelevant as they are not dependant on opinion but scientifically verifiable facts.Closing Statements:In this debate, my opponent has made one basic argument in an attempt to refute my assertion, and it is that without some kind of universal perceiver, all moral issues and values are ultimately subjective to the individual perceivers. In this moral framework, there exists ultimately no distinction between the woman who lived the "bad life" or the man who lived the "good life." That ultimately because their lives come to an end and they cease to be perceived, there really isn't much meaning, purpose or values to those lives.These contentions betray the fact that each individual human being cares very deeply about the state of their conscious experience. Even suicidal people who take their lives do, as they take their lives so as to provide an end to their constant suffering which is their experience. Or for a more simple example, take how you feel about tonight? Perhaps, you want to go home and eat and relax after a long day at work. Now, do you really care if 50-100 years from now other people are perceiving your Thursday evening to see how enjoyable it is? Absolutely not, and it illustrates just how out of tune this argument is with our day to day experience, which we human beings deeply care about and should care about.Our conscious experience of the world is everything to us, and since human beings are the only beings in the universe capable of making moral decisions, this should be of ultimate value. Therefore, based upon what we can learn through neuroscience regarding how our experiences effect the state of our physical brain, we can begin to discuss these moral questions on a more objective and unbiased basis. Kind Regards,TrueScotsman