There is No Such Thing as 'Right' or 'Wrong.'

"My opponent has failed to sustain his refutes with any solid arguments and instead all I heard was 'No, I am right'. Not to mention that my opponent has failed to refute the ideology of our morals . . . " First, my arguments were already presented in the previous post. I presented three arguments with explanations. First, that there is no reason to believe we have any more free will than a computer. Second, the non-existence of a "conscience" based on the example of a culture that has not been raised and conditioned from birth to accept the concept of "morality" in the sense that we speak of it. And third, evolution and natural selection as the basis of the non-existence of an objective morality. For my third argument, it appears that you already agree with me when you say "The notion of morals and values is very subjective and it may vary from one person to the other, could even vary among societies and generations." This denotes that you also believe moral rules are not objective, meaning necessarily the same between different individuals. For my first argument, you stated "I am free, I have the free will to debate this or to simply walk away, I have the free will watch the outcomes of my actions and choices. Simply dismissing the thought of free will means that you have lack the ability to reason, and you are just programmed to follow certain beliefs." and "I challenge you to prove that humans are not free if you want to over throw this theory. I find your example to be quite unfitting." The first quote of yours was simply a statement saying you disagree with my position, and the second statement simply states that you found my example unfitting. You did not say why there is any reason to believe we have more free will than a computer, you simply stated that we do. I already provided an explanation as to why I hold this position, in short, that we are both constructed from the same substance, that is atoms and molecules, and we have discovered physical laws that govern them. We apply this to everything else, and there is no evidence to suggest that we are different. Thus, in the absence of evidence a difference between us and other matter in the world, we must consider ourselves to be governed by the same laws. Now, in your latest post, you did attempt to answer this by stating "I believe that it is not applicable pose such comparison simply because computer unlike humans experience no emotions." But this is a misunderstanding of the argument. My example regarding computers was solely about free will, not whether or not they have emotions. The two are mutually exclusive. Whether computers have emotions or not is immaterial to the argument of whether they have free will. "As for the Lions slaughtering the younger ones phenomena, this is only to show dominance and proclaim the land is their own along with the tribe." Sure, but is this not the same motivation for many humans as well that you label as immoral? "Animals in the end are not of reasoning like ourselves. They are savage, only driven by survival of the fittest?" But you do not know this. And if we have all descended from a common ancestor, why do you assume only one small branch of the evolutionary tree, namely humans, have the characteristic of morality and others don't? It seems improbable. "Morality does not derive from reason alone That is true, Morality maybe not derived from solely logic but they are based on sound logical foundation. I challenge you to find any logical flaws with 'murder or rape' an immoral act." I provided an explanation for this in the 2nd paragraph of my 2nd argument in the original post. Morality is not based on a logical foundation. The foundation of "morals" is in emotional reactions to events or actions that you see around you. The logic part comes in only to extrapolate from your emotional reactions or to make contradictory emotional reactions that you may have consistent. Logic and emotion serve separate purposes in "moral" reasoning. Emotions are the foundation. Logic is used to extrapolate from this foundation. Thus, your challenge to find "logical flaws" with murder or rape as immoral does not make sense. ". . . and finally no 'moral intuition' which you simply dismissed ever so casually without having solid proof. If you can not read people's minds then how do you know it does not exist?" In fact I provided evidence as per the example of many Polynesian peoples who did not share the feelings of "moral intutions." They were not raised in an environment that conditioned them with moral beliefs of the same kind. "In their 2003 article, Wicker and his group described the results of a Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) study" This is a very interesting article, but in no way proves morality of any kind. What it proves is the existence of empathy. The definition of empathy is "is the capacity to recognize emotions that are being experienced by another sentient or fictional being." The definition of morality is "The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct." These are two different definitions, and thus you cannot simply demonstrate proof of empathy and then say you are demonstrating a proof of morality. This is precisely what I stated in the intro to my prior post where I stated "For example, an action may "bring the maximum happiness" or be "harmful" or "beneficial." None of these words have the same definition as the terms "moral" or "immoral." Therefore, we cannot simply show that an action is beneficial to determine whether it is moral. We must then make the connection between something being beneficial and something being moral." "Yet they feel morally obliged to nurture their young ones until they are capable of looking out for themselves (Hence, Moral intuition)." There is no "hence, moral intuition." Once again, what you have described is "compassion" or "kindness." Whether compassion and kindness and nurturing is good or bad or neutral from a moral perspective is the question, not whether or not compassion and kindness exist. You have not answered this question, you have merely put "hence, moral intuition" without any explanation or evidence of any kind that compassion is truly moral.