Morality is Objectively and Analytically the Same regardless of Culture and Era.

I shall now offer my Rebuttals. As he will not have the chance to counter any new cases, I shall only rebute. Counter-Argument I: Self-Evident Truths Pro has attempted to convince us that because all morals derived from a singular intrinsic moral. The problem with this moral (which Pro has failed to detail, so we have to conclude is simply "Do what's right") is incredably vague. Pro has given us a single rule and told us that there is an entire objective legal system built into it. The reality of the situation though is that we cannot take a single moral (or set of singular morals), and expect everyone to come up with the same morality. Unless it is detailed thoroughly and the same regardless of region and age, we are going to individually develope our own views on morality, and therefore in that way, it is purely Subjective to our personal beliefs, and "contigent on cultural and individual definitions". All that a single (or small set of) morals does here is help to cement everyones subjective views as equally right. It also doesn't help Pros case that his example overly simplifies morality. "Is it right to kill" is over simplification of an incredably complicated moral matter which in the real world includes many variables, each of which further "gray" the matter, so that many different answers can be considered right. Counter-Argument II: Disproving Subjectivism For his second argument, Pro has tried to tell us what Subjectivism is. He claims Subjectivism means "I want A = A is good". That isn't subjectivism. Subjectivism is:I: Any of various theories maintaining that moral judgments are statements concerning the emotional or mental reactions of the individual or the community. {1}II: The doctrine that all knowledge is restricted to the conscious self and its sensory states. {2}Essentially subjectivitiy is the result of our personal experiences and envirement, not something as simple as "I want it". Pro's attempts to redefine Subjectiveness won't work here. Pro's second assertian, about the flaws of relativism (aside from him using his own opinions as proof, whereas others may view society in fact ot be the prime determiner of morality), is itself flawed in that it treats it as an either/or situation. It is not simple either Personal Subjectivism or Social Dominence. Rather it is a complicated mixture of Personal Subjectiveness and and Social Relativism (which itself is the general consenses of each persons individual subjectivity, not some domineering force that Pro makes it sound like"), the exact combination of which is for personal determination (Again, proof of Subjectivity). 1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...2] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Responce to Counter-Arguments 1: "His premise is that objective concepts require a source of their objectivity, yet this is false. For example, science and logic are objective concepts, yet we do not see a need for a source for them. " The problem with Pro's counter here is we do in fact require objective sources for science and logic. We do not simply say that fire is hot because we think it might be. We say fire is hot because we have an objective source (Fire, and the heat which comes off it). Science and Logic work entirely by observing Objective objects, and basing our assumptions off those. The idea that our science is based off anything else is absurd. How else do we practice science without source material? Objective Concepts require an Objective Source, otherwise they are sourceless conjecture. Pro's argument also comes in conflict with his prior argument that all morality is derived from objective singular morals. I will not take time to go into detail on how Pro has overwelmingly simplified my argument without giving real rebuttal to the support I gave for that argument.2: Pro has yet again attempted to provide an ill-presented comparison between Philosophy and Science, which are inherently two very different fields. But putting that aside, the problem with Pro's statements here is that he misses the point of the argument entirely. The point of that particular argument is that we cannot trust ourselves to find this "Objective" morality, therefore making it effectively subjective. 3: Yet again, an incredably oversimplification of my arguments (a dubious recreation at best). Pro has claimed that I have "begged the question", but in reality he has simply left out all the support. Begging the Question is claiming A is right because A. That is not what I have done. I have argues A is right because B+C+D. Clearly B+C+D will equal A if my arguments are correct, that is entirely axiomatic. What he did was solve the mathmatical equation, and then argued it was wrong because it equalled exactly what I said it would. Pro has completely refused to answer the arguments I gave, and has tried to alter it in a way so has to make it appear fallacious.4: Pro has attempted to play semantics here (against the rules of the debate) by attempting to alter the definition of "Morality". Pro has just told us Morality is not "what is considered acceptable", but that is exactly what morality is. I: conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. {3} II: beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior {4}III: Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong) {5}As we can see, morality is exactly what is considered good and bad. Adding to this, Pro has claimed these definitions wrong, without providing any new definition of his own. Again right before moving on to the side point, he takes my arguments ( A = B+C+D ), and tries to simplify them into A = A by compressing B+C+D into A (which it will ultimately equal if I'm right), and tries to make us believe I have performed a fallacy by refusing to point out that I have in fact given the supports ( B C and D) to A, rather then moving straight to A.5: If our present culture as not discovered the Objective truth, (even worse saying that we likely never will), then we must assume that Morality is Effectively Subjective, in the same way science and government view God in a secular way. In some ways, one may argue, Pro is using the Teapot in Space argument here, claiming that I cannot argue against something because we haven't come to find it yet. {6}3] . http://dictionary.reference.com...4] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...6] . http://rationalwiki.org...==Unitomic==