There is No Such Thing as 'Right' or 'Wrong.'

My opponent has failed to sustain his refutes with any solid arguments and instead all I heard was 'No, I am right'. Not to mention that my opponent has failed to refute the ideology of our morals coming to existence through acts and deeds, they are born into the realm of existence when they are transferred from our subjective world, the world of our thoughts simply when we decide to act on those thoughts, then they do very much exist in our materialistic realm. As for the Lions slaughtering the younger ones phenomena, this is only to show dominance and proclaim the land is their own along with the tribe. However you are saying that animals as well are of hunting their own which contradicts my proposition isn't that correct? Well by doing so you are unintentionally agreeing that Morality extends to animals as well? And if you don't mean it in such manner, and I am sure you did not. Animals in the end are not of reasoning like ourselves. They are savage, only driven by survival of the fittest? So what separates us from them? What separates us from groveling around in tribes and hunting one another, maybe even cannibalism? It's in my sound reasoning that the answer lies within the 'Moral Code'. But from my understanding, my opponent says that we do not have free will, and Morality does not derive from reason alone That is true, Morality maybe not derived from solely logic but they are based on sound logical foundation. I challenge you to find any logical flaws with 'murder or rape' an immoral act. And as for your 'fitting example' You can not compare a human being with a machine that is limited with choices and say that we both are a like, sharing this aspect. Just because you provide an example and believe it is fitting does not make it any of such. I believe that it is not applicable pose such comparison simply because computer unlike humans experience no emotions. If we did not experience emotions we would not have laws, no moral code and finally no 'moral intuition' which you simply dismissed ever so casually without having solid proof. If you can not read people's minds then how do you know it does not exist? And if so, it just shows that you want to impose negative points regardless of their own clarity. I argue that you pick your arguments more carefully in the future as this simply weakens your position. I for one can tell you that moral intuition, exists within my world? I would like to see you refute that. And if you can't disprove moral intuition existence, then it is more likely that Moral and Immoral actions do exist. But if you still think that Moral intuition does not exist well I will provide you with a brief experiment, please view it.In their 2003 article, Wicker and his group described the results of a Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) study in which experimental subjects were asked to inhale odorants selected to produce strong feelings of disgust. The same subjects were also asked to observe video clips of other individuals exhibiting or showing the facial expression of disgust. The scientists reported that the same sites in the anterior insula (and to a lesser extent in the anterior cingulate cortex) were activated both when the experimental subjects themselves experienced disgust and when they observed the filmed expressions of disgust on the faces of others.6 The researchers therefore concluded in reference to the mirror-neuron matching system that, “just as observing hand actions activates the observer’s motor representation of that action, observing an emotion activates the neural representation of that emotion. This finding provides a unifying mechanism for understanding the behavior of others” (“BUD,” 655). The study by Wicker and his team has generated considerable interest in the neuroscientific community (a recent Google search indicates that the paper has now been cited in over 900 research articles). In subsequent publications, Rizzolatti, Gallese, Keysers and others have cited Wicker et al.’s experiment on disgust as confirming the idea that there is a common neural basis for emotional empathy.7The experiment by Wicker and his group has also provided confirming evidence for Alvin I. Goldman’s influential approach to the “problem of other minds.” In his 2006 book, Simulating Minds, Goldman begins his review of the empirical evidence supportive of his Simulation Theory of mindreading by focusing on the “low-level” task of recognizing the emotional expressions of others because, as he observes with reference to the findings of Wicker et al. and those of others, the case for simulation here is “very substantial.”8Now, Morality and Instinct!You have dismissed the idea of morality associating I believe and that is why I would like to propose yet another phenomena. And this one involves crows. The funny thing about this one in particular is that you can not find anything to associate this with but Moral Reasoning, that is through the idea of motherhood and how it is no different with our less intellectual peers. Humans and animals alike share the ideology of motherhood even though they share little of our capability to reason. Yet they feel morally obliged to nurture their young ones until they are capable of looking out for themselves (Hence, Moral intuition). And also riddle me this? Why is dog man's best friend? What drives dog's to feel such loyalty towards a different spices. If you want my opinion I do think it is associated with any primal or survival roots. Dogs enjoy the company of man and expect nothing in return. There are many other examples, those are but two I provide regarding this topic.In other words, Religion did not give us Morality but was a mere guidance for us order to use and acknowledge it's existence. Because if you think about it? How can religion provide us with something we did not already have. (If flight was introduced in any of the religions, would you argue that we can fly, unlike morality it is high wired into our biopsychological system)SOURCE: http://nonsite.org...