There is no objective basis for morality.

Con stated "...I said, "If I live by the same moral standard that my neighbors lives by, there is an objective standard. Or at least, it is a more objective standard than would exist under a lack of morality or support of morality" as a supporting statement, not as a self-supporting statement." This statement, as I demonstrated in Round 4, is not self-supporting nor does in support the position that there is an objective basis for morality as it can be used to demonstrate that something can be both moral and immoral. Con's next paragraph starts with, "To clarify, there is a set of objective rules in which we live, and that is what real morality is based on. These rules are not subjective (like the ten commandments) but are facts that add up objectively." This debate is about whether or not there is an objective basis (or objective rules) for morality and this statement is just a re-statement of Con's position that there is an objective basis for morality. However, Con has not provided any support for this position other than opinions and arguments that can be used to show that something can be both moral and immoral. Con continues with, "Something along the lines of "do not initiate force against some other individual as it would prevent him from living peacefully, and you would not want some other individual to initiate force against you as it would prevent you from living peacefully." This statement exists independently of anyone's personal convictions as it does not require interpretation: "any unwarranted action that infringes on another individual's ability to act independently" is sufficient." The first sentence is similar to Con's statement made in Round 2 regarding the initiation of force. My response is similar to the one I provided in Round 3, that Con's statement is an opinion and does nothing to demonstrate that there is an objective basis for morality since instead of coming to the same opinion as Con one could just as easily come to an opinion like, "I would not want some other individual to initiate force against me as it would prevent me from living peacefully, but that does not mean that it is wrong for me to initiate force against someone else." Con goes on with, "This statement exists independently of anyone's personal convictions as it does not require interpretation: "any unwarranted action that infringes on another individual's ability to act independently" is sufficient." Con's statement does require interpretation. The act of killing the man on the beach would be a warranted action, according to Con, if someone labeled the action as self-defense and an unwarranted action if someone labeled it murder. But let's examine another example, taxes. There are some who believe that taxes are theft (1) and are an unwarranted action that infringes on another individual's ability to act independently. There are others who believe that taxes are not theft (2) and are not an unwarranted action that infringes on another individual's ability to act independently. Which is it? If different people can attach different meaning to an "unwarranted action" then it does require interpretation and is not sufficient to demonstrate that there is an objective basis for morality therefore the statement is just Con's opinion. Con's next paragraph starts with, "Actions as described above are immoral because they prevent another individual from living independently of the perpetrator." In addition to not establishing an objective basis for determining that it is immoral if one person is not "living independently of the perpetrator", Con makes the statement more subjective by using the term "perpetrator". To continue the tax example, the people that think that taxation is theft would consider the government collecting the taxes to be a perpetrator. The people that think that taxation is not theft would not consider the government collecting the taxes to be a perpetrator. If the label of "perpetrator" depends on one point of view or beliefs then it is not independent of individual thought and does not have reality independent of the mind. Con continues with, "Morality is objective because being immoral does not make sense and does not work." This is another unsupported opinion that Con expects the reader to accept as correct simply because Con wrote it. This statement is not objective, specifically because it depends on how one interprets the phrase "does not work". Let us consider someone who murders people since murder is an act that Con has stated is immoral. While there are numerous examples throughout history, I will use Mao Tse-tung. Mao Tse-tung is responsible for the murder of millions of people (3) so, according to Con, Mao Tse-tung was "being immoral". So if Mao was being immoral and being immoral does not work, what did not work for Mao? Mao was the absolute leader of his country; he had every advantage that a human living in his time period could have; he was never thrown in jail or similarly punished for his acts of murder; and he lived a long life and died of natural causes (as opposed to being deposed and killed) (4). Some people could interpret these facts to mean that being immoral does work and other people may interpret these facts to mean that being immoral does not work. It is purely a matter of opinion and not objective. Con's last paragraph states, "Hypocrisy is mathematically incorrect because it would mean setting a double standard and therefore would mean violating itself twice. If you set a double standard (as you do if you do not follow a moral code) you are violating your own system. Therefore it is objective to act morally." Con now states that hypocrisy is mathematically incorrect, not because of the use of correct and incorrect math problems as in Round 3 but because it would mean setting a double standard. Similar to my response in Round 4 concerning hypocrisy, I will state that I can understand that Con may not like hypocrisy or double standards but that does not make hypocrisy or double standards immoral or incorrect. I stated in Round 4 that I do not like brussels sprouts but that does not make them immoral and will add that I also do not like double standards but that does not make double standards immoral it just means that I do not like them. Throughout this debate Con has attempted to demonstrate that there is an objective basis for morality by using unsupported opinions and subjective arguments that can be used to show that something is moral and immoral depending on how it is used. Since opinions and non-objective statements are not independent of individual thought nor do they have reality independent of the mind, Con has failed to demonstrate that there is an objective basis for morality and it is still Pro's position that there is not an objective basis for morality; 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. Thank you for reading and thanks to themightyindividual for participating in this debate. I appreciate the opportunity to increase my knowledge on this subject and I hope that everyone enjoyed this debate as much as I have. (1) http://www.huppi.com... http://www.libertarian.co.uk... (2) http://www.philosophyetc.net... http://whistlinginthewind.org... (3) http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.heritage.org... http://www.abc.net.au... (4) http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.history.com... http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.nytimes.com...