Morality is an evolved social construct

One thing that I think we both agree on is that morality is socially constructed - that is, without a society, you cannot construct a morality. My position, however, is that morality has not evolved - or put another way, everything is relatively amoral (the nihilistic perspective). I reject the idea that there are moral norms across society, and therefore, I reject the idea that our society is moral. Perceptions of morality exist, but these are determined amorally (based on the outcome of the action) and so can hardly be called "evolved," rather, they are a by-product of reasoning, as distinct from morality. For people who might be confused. .. MORALITY means 1. a code of conduct put forward by a society or, 1a. some other group, such as a religion, or 1b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or 2. a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. [1] My argument is as follows: 1. That morality is never objective, therefore it does not objectively exist, therefore it did not evolve 2. That a subjective view of morality is not directly evolved because it is determined amorally 3. That if neither form of morality was evolved, the motion falls, and therefore I win To win this debate, pro must not only meet his own burden of proof, which is to show that morality was evolved (which is rather impossible without access to reliable early human DNA) . .. pro must also refute my contention above. My argument in detail 1. That morality is never objective 1.1 If morality was objective, we would expect all people to agree 1.1.1 Humans have the vast majority of their DNA in common [2] 1.1.2 DNA is the substance that passes traits between generations 1.1.3 If morality was evolved, it would therefore be coded in our DNA 1.1.4 As our DNA is all very much the same, we would expect all humans to have very similar morality 1.1.5 In human experience, we have diverse morality - as evidenced by the large number of moral arguments on this site 1.1.6 Even with moral rules with a simple reasonable logical answer, such as "don't kill," we still disagree on issues like abortion, euthanasia, war-time and the death penalty 1.2 If the alternative cannot be ruled out, a decision is not justified 1.2.1 Presume I make a claim ("this is a lake") 1.2.2 The validity of that claim is based on whether I can rule out the alternative ("this is a bay") 1.2.3 Presume I make a moral claim ("it is wrong to pick your nose") 1.2.4 The validity of that claim is based on whether I can rule out the alternative ("it is right to pick your nose") 1.2.5 With moral claims, ruling out the alternative is impossible 1.2.6 Therefore, there are no moral claims 2. That a subjective view of morality is determined amorally 2.1 There is no moral basis to build a subjective view on 2.1.1 Everything in argument #1 above is completely and unreservedly correct 2.1.2 Therefore objective morality does not exist 2.1.3 Therefore we cannot determine things morally 2.1.4 Therefore any moral judgements we make are determined amorally 2.2 Even if there were, that's not how we make decisions 2.2.1 Most people make justified moral decisions ("I offer hospitality to others so that they might offer it to me") 2.2.2 This justification comes from reasoning 2.2.3 Reasoning is not equal to morality 2.2.4 Therefore, people use reasoning to make decisions, though they may falsely label it morality. Conclusion In this first round I have offered a very simple case for why my opponent is dead wrong. I have shown that we live in an amoral world. While this conclusion might be a little hard to swallow, please try to follow my logic. I have built four solid arguments to substantiate my claim. My opponent has got a serious burden to meet. I wish him well, and look forward to hearing some rebuttals. References [1] - . http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] - . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [3] - . http://en.wikipedia.org...