There is no objective basis for morality.

I accept that there are objective physical Laws of Nature, such as the Laws of Thermodynamics. However, Con has not established that there is any objective connection between the Laws of Nature and morality. In Round 2 Con stated, "When one follows a set of rules, one is moral. On the other hand, when one does not follow a set of rules, one is immoral." In Round 3 Con stated, "Again, the following is my concept of morality. Morality is a binary construct. If I may, under the advice of Pro, "When one follows a set of rules, one follows a set of rules [moral] and when one does not follow a set of rules, one does not follow a set of rules [immoral]."" All that Con has done with this concept of morality is decide to state that following the objective Laws of Nature is moral and not following them in immoral and therefore there is an objective basis for morality. But this is an arbitrary decision on Con's part. I could arbitrarily decide that "When one follows a set of rules, one follows a set of rules [bxftyz] and when one does not follow a set of rules, one does not follow a set of rules [not-bxftyz]" and claim that there is an objective basis for "bxftyz". I made up the term "bxftyz" and arbitrarily used it to define following a set of rules. Con has done something similar only Con is using the terms "moral" and "immoral" rather than "bxftyz" and "not-bxftyz" in, what appears to be, an attempt to cause the reader to make a connection between the Laws of Nature and morality where none exists. For Con to begin to demonstrate that there is any connection between the objective Laws of Nature and morality, Con has to first provide an objective answer to the question that I posed in the last round: Why is one moral when one follows a set of rules and immoral when one does not follow a set of rules? Unless Con can provide an objective answer to this question, Con fails, at the start, to establish a connection between the objective Laws of Nature and morality. Without an objective answer, Con's concept of morality, just like my concept of "bxftyz", is nothing but an arbitrary statement. Both concepts claim a connection to the Laws of Nature (a set of rules) but neither establishes an objective connection between the Laws of Nature and the concepts; both concepts are nothing but opinion and the subjective products of our respective minds. To further demonstrate that Con's concept of morality is nothing but a subjective product of Con's mind, consider Con's statement of "My concept of morality is based on the following definitions [from Dictionary.com]: Moral: "conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral)...Conduct: "direction or management; execution."" According to Dictionary.com there are seven definitions for the adjective "moral" (1) and four definitions for the noun "conduct" (2). On what objective basis did Con decide to use "conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral)" for the definition of "moral"? Why didn't Con choose the definition "virtuous in sexual matters; chaste" so that Con's concept of morality would read as "When one follows a set of rules, one is virtuous in sexual matters"? Additionally, the Merriam-Webster dictionary has seven entries for the definition of "moral" (3) and three entries for the definition of "conduct" (4). On what objective basis did Con choose to use a particular definition found in one dictionary and not another dictionary? The answers, I believe, are that Con chose a particular definition out of a particular dictionary because that definition supported Con's opinion while the other definitions did not support Con's opinion (or at least did not support it as well). It was a purely subjective choice on Con's part and further demonstrates that Con's concept of morality is nothing but a subjective product of Con's mind. For additional evidence on this point, consider Con's statement of "The only "code" I made reference to is the "objective" physical universal code known as the Laws of Nature. And if Pro or Con wants to get anything done in the physical domain, we must follow (aka moral compliance) that physical code; otherwise, if we do not follow (aka immoral not complying) that physical code, it is not going to get done." Taking this statement as written, when Con chose a particular definition for "moral" out of all of the possible definitions available, Con got something done in the physical domain [This had to be done in the physical domain because it is a part of the scope of Con's position and according to Con: "...the scope of my position is in the physical domain not metaphysical."]. Therefore, Con must have followed the Laws of Nature, that physical code, to choose that particular definition for "moral" out of all of the possible definitions available otherwise it was "not going to get done" and Con would not have been able to choose that particular definition. So what Law of Nature, the Laws of Gravity, Newton's Laws of Motion, etc., did Con follow to choose that particular definition for the term "moral"? And if I choose to use a different definition of "moral" (e.g. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste), it means that I also got something done in the physical domain and therefore, I must have also followed the Laws of Nature, that physical code, to choose that particular definition for "moral" out of all of the possible definitions available otherwise it was "not going to get done" and I would not have been able to choose that particular definition. Was I following a different Law of Nature than Con when I made my choice? If I was following the same Law of Nature as Con, how did I make a different choice and come to a different conclusion about the definition of "moral"? If I was following a different Law of Nature than Con, how is there an objective basis for a concept of morality when following different Laws of Nature leads to different definitions of "moral"? Since both Con and I chose different definitions, does that mean that one of us was not following the Laws of Nature even though both Con and I got something done in the physical domain? Any answers to these questions, I believe, will be nothing but a subjective product of Con's mind and will do nothing to demonstrate that there is an objective basis for morality. 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. Again, for Con to begin to demonstrate that there is any connection between the objective Laws of Nature and morality, Con has to first provide an objective answer to the question: Why is one moral when one follows a set of rules and immoral when one does not follow a set of rules? Unless Con can provide an objective answer to this question, Con fails to establish a connection between the objective Laws of Nature and morality as Con's concept of morality is nothing but an arbitrary statement based on individual belief, or opinion, or preference, or some other non-objective source and does not demonstrate that there is an objective basis for morality. 1) http://dictionary.reference.com... 2) http://dictionary.reference.com... 3) http://www.merriam-webster.com... 4) http://www.merriam-webster.com...