Objective Morality Does Not Exist

Thanks Pro. I must cast enough doubt on Pro's case to negate it or provide a counter-plan than provides a better alternative. Either will do. Defining objective morality Objective + morality = Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior that are not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. " I will simply be arguing that morality is not an objective concept." (Pro, Round 1). Immediately we can see that most of Pro's case is thrown out. We're arguing whether something on a conceptual level is objective or not. Conceptualizing is a higher order cognitive process. Only humans are capable of conceptualizing. Examples anything pre-human are not relevant. Pro says "It is quite easy for us to acknowledge that there are actions that are universally right and wrong, but that is because we are all the same species (human) and as such, have very similarly developed brains, which is the very source of this judgment." If I'm understanding right, it seems like Pro is supporting objective morality from a purely human perspective. Pro's Logic in a syllogism 1. If morality is emergent, then morality is relative 2. Morality is emergent C. Morality is relative (ie not objective) Now I'll show why this logic is faulty using my own arguments: 1. If mathematics is emergent, then mathematics is relative 2. Mathematics is emergent C. Mathematics is relative (ie not objective) Or 1. If the laws of logic are emergent, then the law of logic are relative 2. The laws of logic are emergent C. The laws of logic are relative (ie not objective) My premise is affirmed using the exact same logic that Pro uses to reject objective morality. Mathematics and the laws of logic are both objective and conceptual. Just because the concepts of logic and mathematics are conceived using a higher functioning brain doesn't mean that the concepts are relative or non-objective. Evolution, in principle, can’t tell us whether morality is objective or subjective. Moral principles could be analogous to an organisms ability to see. The light was always there – but the organisms just didn’t have sufficiently developed eyes to see it yet. The light has objective presence but the ability to see it is not. According to Immanuel Kant, one of the greatest philosphers of the 18th century, said that morality is a "rational enterprise". He believed that morality was objective because it had a foundation in pure, practical reason. Here is his formulation: Find the agent's maxim (i.e., an action paired with its motivation). Take for example the declaration "I will lie for personal benefit". Lying is the action; the motivation is to fulfill some sort of desire. Paired together, they form the maxim. Imagine a possible world in which everyone in a similar position to the real-world agent followed that maxim. With no exception of one's self. This is in order for you to hold people to the same principle required of yourself. Decide whether any contradictions or irrationalities arise in the possible world as a result of following the maxim. If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed in the real world. If there is no contradiction, then acting on that maxim is permissible, and is sometimes required According to Kant, morality is rational because it has an objective foundation in pure, practical reasoning. A black widow eating its mate is not "cannibalism" in the sense that it was a rational choice. Nor is forcible animal copulation "rape". Intent is the very basic foundation of morality. It's the difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter. Animals and bugs that aren't capable of rational decision making act out of instinct. It's not comparable to a moral choice. The difference between killing a mosquito and puppy is pretty straightforward. A mosquito is potential disease-carrying parasite. It probably has little to no capacity to feel pain. A puppy is an adorable and relatively safe pet. It has the capacity to feel a much larger amount of pain. Causing unnecessary pain is cruel. It's better to let something be - and live - if it doesn't bother you. These are rational conclusions. Emotions aren't necessarily subjective. Pain is an emotion. Burn anyone's face and you'll get an objectively painful reaction. I don't see the problem that varying degrees of moral-ness poses for objective morality. Somebody might find 101 degrees farenheit too hot for the jacuzzi while others finds it to be just fine. The degrees are still 101 no matter what disposition we may have about it. The same is true for differing perspectives on the degree of immorality of something. http://en.wikipedia.org...