Science can determine human values.

Premise One My statement was not a red herring. If objective moral values exist, they would still have meaning even if there were no conscious creatures to appreciate them. Just like two plus two equals four, would still mean that two and two is four, even if there were no creatures around capable of counting. I have not changed the terms of Pro’s argument. If cutting down trees does not relate to human flourishing, then it does not relate to human values (as human values are connected to human flourishing – why would we value something that works against our well-being?). Preserving the earth does not have to be reducible to our well-being. You can make that argument, that trees and plants are needed to absorb carbon dioxide and provide oxygen that we need to survive. But if someone makes the argument that the Earth should be preserved because we have no right to use its resources and destroy its natural beauty, that is not related to human well-being, or the flourishing of a conscious creature. That is related to preserving nature, a non-conscious entity. If Con is arguing that the separation between morality and science is not valid, he certainly has not made that clear up until now. As I stated earlier, science can only inform morality, it can’t dictate it. Science can help us come to moral conclusions, but it can’t draw any moral conclusions at all. For example, whatever your feelings about abortion, most people feel that infanticide is morally impermissible. Science shows us that we are human beings from fertilization, but we know that infantsare human beings. One might say this shows us that we ought not kill infants. Yet there are those (like Peter Singer) who claim that we should be able to kill infants that parents don’t want because it causes the greatest amount of happiness. So science can’t seem to draw any moral conclusions because even ifpopular opinion thinks something is obvious due to scientific information, there will always be those who can argue against it. To reiterate, science can’t draw any moral conclusions. It can show us truth relating to reality, but onlyphilosophy can help us draw any moral conclusions from a scientific finding. Premise Two I have shown that the distinction between fact and value is logical. Due to the is-ought gap, as recognized by David Hume, you can’t draw a moral distinction from a descriptive claim of reality. I definitely agree with Pro that there are objective moral values, but these can’t be determined by science. I’m sure we can both agree that rape is morally wrong (in fact, morally monstrous). But we can’t get this distinction from science. We know that you are performing an act against a human being, but in order to get from “performing an act” to whether the act is morally right or wrong requires a philosophical argument. Rape is wrong for several reasons, namely that it is a gross violation of her right to bodily integrity, it has a chance of getting her pregnant against her will, etc. But why should any of these matter? You need a philosophical argument to arrive at these reasons. Science can’t tell us that it’s wrong to get someone pregnant against her will, that we have any rights at all, etc. Premise Three I agree that Pro’s admission that there are moral questions that can’t be answered with science doesn’t negate the resolution. But I have shown that science can’t determine any human values. Pro is right that if improving well-being is moral, then science can tell us what’s right or wrong. But the problem here is that Pro is presupposing a philosophical value. You must establish a philosophical foundation (namely, that maximizing human values is moral) before science can tell you anything. I have shown that Pro’s resolution has been negated. Science can’t determine human values. Philosophy is required to establish that. Even if something seems to be obvious from a scientific discovery, you must first establish a philosophical foundation in order to make that determination. And even if it seems to be obvious, there are those who can make a philosophical argument against what seems to be obvious about the scientific finding. It seems sure that philosophy is required todetermine human values, science can’t do the job at all. I will accept the round 5 suggestion. That should help the last round be a little more interesting, rather than more of the same. 1: In my view, the existence of God is necessary for the existence of objective moral values. Atheists can live moral lives apart from God, but without God objective moral values would not even exist. Morality would be left up to the opinions of individuals and/or societies. In order for objective morality to exist (that is, morality independent of human thought), then someone outside of humanity must exist in order for objective morality to make any sense. 2: I don’t believe there have ever been any convincing arguments made by Atheists that objective morality can exist without God. 3: That’s an interesting question. I believe that I would become a moral relativist. I know some philosophers have made convincing cases that without God, anything goes (Nietzsche being one), but I think morality would be left up to individual whim (or the whims of society) if God didn’t exist. Questions for Pro: 1: Can you give one argument for a moral position that doesn’t involve any philosophical reasoningat all? 2: Do conscious creatures have a moral obligation to improve the well-being of non-conscious entities, as much as is reasonable? (By reasonable, I mean within certain limits, such as not harming through action or allowing harm by inaction a conscious creature in order to help a non-conscious creature, etc.). 3: How do you ground objective morality, as (I’m assuming) an Atheist?