There is no objective basis for morality.

Con states, "Before I continue, I must revise my statement, as Pro did not understand them..." I did not misunderstand Con's statements made in Round 2. Con stated, "... the only purpose of life is to survive..." and "... the only reason in living is to enjoy life..." If Con "meant those as the same thing" and now decides to provide a much longer definition with even more terms ("To survive, thrive, and preserve your ability to survive by raising your standard of living through the accumulation of wealth and thus the ability to enjoy life as well as passing on your DNA to future generations") that is Con's prerogative but Con cannot claim that I did not understand Con's two individual statements that were made in two separate paragraphs. Con then states, "My opponent obviously overlooked the fact that killing someone for self-defense is not murder and therefore does not violate laws of reason, and was confused by that." I did not overlook anything nor was I confused. Con forgets that I addressed this issue in Round 2 after Con stated in Round 1: "However, I must point out that killing someone who does not present and actual danger to you that is equivalent to murder is irrational and unjust." I pointed out in Round 2, and will do so again, that the only objective statement you can make about one man killing another man, on the beach or in general, is that one man killed another man. Once one attaches a label, like murder or self-defense or irrational or unjust, to the act one moves from objective to subjective. Depending on the label that Con chooses to attach to the act of killing a man, murder, self-defense, etc., killing a man becomes either moral or immoral. I asked in Round 2 (Con did not answer) and I will ask again: how do you determine which label to attach to the act and how do you know that the label you attach is the correct label? As I pointed out earlier, one man's murder is another man's self-defense is another man's patriotic duty, etc. So how does one know the difference? Con must provide an objective (independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers: having reality independent of the mind) answer to these questions in order to demonstrate that Con's statement "...killing someone for self-defense is not murder and therefore does not violate laws of reason..." is not just Con's opinion. Con continues with, "Let me clarify that it is objectively incorrect to kill someone for a purpose other than the prevention of that person killing you." If it is objectively incorrect to kill someone for a purpose other than the prevention of that person killing you, then that would mean that if a person was going to kill your spouse, or a member of your family, or a school bus full of children, but was not going to kill you it would be objectively incorrect to kill that person. While this does nothing to demonstrate that there is an objective basis for morality, Con's statement is not perceptible by all observers as I have personally talked with people who think that it is correct to kill someone who is going to kill others, and is not objective (To head off a claim by Con that I am confused by or did not understand Con's statement, I will point out that I am word-for-word quoting what Con wrote and if Con meant something different then Con should have written something different). Con continues with "This is because that [it is objectively incorrect to kill someone for a purpose other than the prevention of that person killing you] would be hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is mathematically incorrect (e.g. 1 + 1 = 2 but 2 - 1 = 0?)." I agree that one of the math problems Con presented is incorrect as 2 less 1 does not equal zero but I do not agree that an incorrect math problem represents hypocrisy. Con needs to explain objectively (independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers: having reality independent of the mind) how this works otherwise this statement is just as valid: hypocrisy in mathematically correct (e.g. 1+1 = 2 but 2-1=1?). Further, even if Con can objectively explain how hypocrisy is mathematically incorrect, Con then needs to objectively explain why hypocrisy makes killing the man on the beach incorrect (or immoral). I am assuming that hypocrisy has the meaning set out in the dictionary (1) so if Con has a different definition then Con needs to provide it. I can understand that Con may not like hypocrisy but that does not make hypocrisy immoral or incorrect. I do not like brussels sprouts but that does not make brussels sprouts immoral. Con needs to objectively explain why hypocrisy makes killing the man on the beach incorrect (or immoral). Con continues with, "If an action violates the laws of reason it is violating the human equivalent of the laws of physics. Not only does morality provide the safety of being a human being, it also is the only objective way to live." Con has provided no evidence supporting these statements so Con is once again presenting opinions that Con expects the reader to accept as correct simply because Con wrote them. Opinions are not objective (independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers: having reality independent of the mind). Con needs to demonstrate that these statements are objectively correct and not just an opinion otherwise equally unsupported but valid opinions could be "If an action violates the laws of reason it is nothing like violating the laws of physics. Not only does morality not provide the safety of being a human being, it also not an objective way to live." Con's next paragraph starts with, "If I live by the statement "Since I do not want someone to kill me I had better take care and see to it that no one kills me but that does not mean that it is wrong for me to kill someone else." as Pro said, that would be subjective as it does not reflect reality, only someone's warped views of reality." Again we have an unsupported opinion by Con that Con expects the reader to accept as correct simply because Con wrote it. Con needs to provide support for this statement, specifically Con needs to objectively explain what "warped views of reality" are, how one determines if someone, including oneself, has "warped views of reality" or not, and how one can be certain that the determination is correct. I would note that one could argue that if someone believed that they can fly by flapping their arms that could be used as a determination of a warped view of reality as it does not reflect reality, but the context of this debate is morality so Con needs to show how one determines a "warped view of reality" when it comes to morality. In the same paragraph Con states, "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." It appears that Con does not understand the definition of objective as provided in Round 1. If my neighbors live by a moral standard and I live by the same moral standard that does not mean that that standard is objective (independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers: having reality independent of the mind), it simply means that my neighbors and I live by the same standard. Con statement does not demonstrate that there is an objective basis for morality as it show that something could be both moral and immoral. To that point, if Con's statement was correct, it would mean that if Con lived in ancient Rome were slavery was widespread and accepted (2), and Con owned slaves, and Con's neighbors owned slaves, then Con would conclude that, since we all live by the same moral standard, i.e. slavery is moral, then it is an objective standard that slavery is moral, but since Con (according to the profile) lives in the United States and does not own slaves and Con's neighbors do not own slaves, then Con would conclude that, since we all live by the same moral standard, i.e. slavery is immoral, then it is an objective standard that slavery is immoral. Since Con's statement can be used to demonstrate that something can be both moral and immoral, it is not objective and does not prove that there is an objective basis for morality. Con's arguments continue to be opinions and non-objective statements that demonstrate that something can be both moral and immoral. 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. (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) http://www.vroma.org... http://ancienthistory.about.com... http://www.pbs.org... http://www.crystalinks.com... http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...