There is no objective basis for morality.

As I stated previously, so far in this debate, all Con has done is to arbitrarily decide that the objective Laws of Nature and morality are connected and then claim that there is an objective basis for morality and Con's last round was no different. I have posed the question of "Why is one moral when one follows a set of rules and immoral when one does not follow a set of rules?" in two different Rounds as a starting point for Con to demonstrate that there is any connection between the objective Laws of Nature and morality, and not only has Con not provided an objective answer to this question, Con has not even acknowledged this question. Unless Con can provide an objective answer to this question, Con fails to establish a connection between the objective Laws of Nature and morality and all Con can do is to repeat that morality is objective in the hope that after enough repetition it will eventually be believed. In the last Round, Con states "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." My focus for this debate was to meet Pro's burden of proof by demonstrating that the arguments provided by Con are not objective and I believe that I have done that. As for my perspective, I had hoped that I had made that clear in the opening Round when I stated that my position is that an objective basis for morality has not been shown to exist and that judging or labeling an action as either moral or immoral is the result of individual belief, or opinion, or preference, or some other non-objective source. In the last Round, Con mentions my reference to Con's choice of a definition for "moral" without answering any of the questions that I posed along with it when Con states, "...my usage of a dictionary, selecting a definition out of a list of definitions is proper" and "...I hope this debate does not digress into the proper usage of a dictionary." It was never my intention for this debate to digress into a discussion of the proper use of a dictionary. The reason that I mentioned Con's choice of definitions, as I stated in Round 4, was to further demonstrate that Con's concept of morality is nothing but a subjective product of Con's mind. And in the last Round, Con has added a new definition for "universal morality" from yet another source in what appears to be a further attempt to demonstrate that there is an objective basis for morality. I will not digress into a discussion of this concept. However, I will note that if Con wanted this debate to include "universal morality" as defined by Con and Con laments this "debate's one dimensional setup" and wished for the "opportunity to discuss morality as a function of group formation" then Con should have mentioned this prior to accepting this debate in the comment section or in a message to me and not in Round 4 of a five Round debate that was very specific in its scope. To introduce the concept of group formation and universal morality, two concepts that are far outside the scope of this debate as outlined in Round 1, now is, in my opinion, nothing but a distraction and, while I believe that I would not have any problem demonstrating that these concepts are just as subjective as the rest of Con's concepts, the concepts are outside the scope of this debate and it is not proper to discuss them here. If Con wishes to debate these concepts and decides to set up a debate, I will consider participating. Throughout this debate, Con has offered opinions and subjective arguments in an attempt to demonstrate that there is an objective basis for morality. I have pointed out these opinions; I have provided equally subjective arguments that demonstrate the opposite of Con's position; and I have posed questions, questions that remain unanswered, about Con's arguments that demonstrate that Con's basis for morality is nothing but the product of Con's mind. I believe that I have meet the burden of proof for this debate and I continue to assert that an objective basis for morality has not been shown to exist and that judging or labeling an action as either moral or immoral is the result of individual belief, or opinion, or preference, or some other non-objective source. I would like to thank Mike_10-4 for participating in this debate. I found it enjoyable and enlightening and it is my hope that Mike_10-4 and everyone reading also gained something from this exchange.