Atheistic Objective Morality

Thanks MagicAintReal! Semantics I’ll begin by addressing the semantics that my opponent introduces in his previous round. His entire approach has now shifted to attempting to win this debate off of the ‘can’ in the resolution, instead of proving that his normative ethical system of morality is objectively justified by metaethics. At the beginning of the debate I agreed with my opponent’s observation that there may be some exceptions. Now my opponent is distorting that observation and is making it so that every single normative ethical system is invalidated and it is only objective under his standard. I will now clarify the resolution with some additional definitions (the reason I did not do this earlier is because I was not expecting there to be a semantical debate over the definition of ‘can’ and the argument was only made in the previous round). Can: “be able to.” [1] Whilst this does imply that there could possibly be some (defined: “a small amount or number of people or things.”) exceptions, which my opponent clearly states and concedes in R1. My opponent dismisses every normative ethical system but his own. This is, by definition, not some since some refers to a small amount of things - whilst this is subjective, an overwhelming majority is clearly not small as it is an antonym of this [3][4]. Ergo, my opponent’s observation is false. Can refers to the fact that something can be achieved in the MAJORITY of situations. My opponent is requesting that voters vote for him since he has shown that morality can be objective however he fails to do this since he needs to negate other normative ethical systems of morality and show credibility towards his which he fails to do. For this reason I ask voters to vote on whether or not my opponent affirms the existence of objective morality in most cases. So far, all he has done is show that objective morality is possible (ie. greater than 0% in probability), though he has done nothing to prove that it is any more reasonable than me saying that morality doesn’t exist. The DebateMy opponent once again makes another semantical move however this time it is more relevant and applicable to the debate. He states that his normative ethical system must be true since behavior regards how one acts / conduct themselves towards another. I will once again reinstate those other normative ethical systems of morality here since they are, once again, applicable - even under my opponent’s semantical approach. Welfarism - for example, regards the economic benefits of on action making it moral. Therefore, welfarism would count as a means of normative ethically defining an action as moral. Whilst all of these do regard human well being, my opponent’s normative ethical system specifically refers to the maintaining of homeostasis and removal of suffering. Welfarism does regard acting and conducting yourself in a way to another (which meets the definition of behaviour) since it regards doing things to improve a person's or group’s economic state and in order to do this you must interact or conduct yourself in a specific way towards a specific person. Therefore, my opponent still needs to prove that his normative ethical system is preferable to any other (which once again, I must reiterate are subjective since my opponent has made no attempt to prove his system to be any better than the other normative ethical systems and I have proven that this is a normative ethical belief that other people do believe in - thus showing that it is subjective as to which one you believe in). Whilst my opponent’s normative ethical system does fit the definition of morality he does nothing to prove that it is any better than one of dozens of normative ethical systems of morality that I could list. The unit of measurement is objective but going back to the example of welfarism. Economic gain is also an objective unit of measurement and since believers in welfarism believe that economic gain is the more moral action then this is also an objective unit of measurement to measure morality. So I reiterate the question to my opponent which he has consistently failed to answer throughout the debate, why is this normative ethical system of morality any better than any other normative ethical system of morality? Metaethics Please extend that my opponent’s homeostasis argument is normative ethical. My opponent’s argument is clearly normative ethical and I will repeat the reasons once more. The argument defines a specific action that is immoral - ie. the moving away of homeostasis and moving away from suffering. That isn’t what morality actually IS. It’s certain actions that are perceived to be immoral by your subjective standards that you fail to justify. Therefore, this is a very, very clear normative ethical argument. Perspectives on morality Whilst it is true that intellectualists would agree that human well being is important they would not believe that moving away from homeostasis and the creation of human suffering are immoral actions - which is what Pro is arguing here. A utilitarian believes that moral actions are those that cause happiness. Whilst they can certainly involve homeostasis. They do not view homeostasis or suffering as a measurement of morality. They use happiness. Whilst suffering can come under happiness in negative terms, this doesn’t mean that suffering is there unit of measurement which is what you are affirming - so once again this isn’t applicable. Utilitarian beliefs are still different normative ethical ones to yours. Giving money to a person and considering that as moral is quite different to relieving somebody of suffering and considering that as moral. Whilst they can sometimes intertwine with each other. There are occasions where they are different and as a result affirming one is not the equivalent of affirming another and if my opponent disagrees then he must prove this and so far he hasn’t been able to. My opponent states that he doesn’t need to prove that his system is better but the problem is that he must. There are many systems of morality and choosing one at random is not objectively determining morality. That is subjectively picking a random system of morality out of a hat and saying that morality is objective because this system says so. That is preposterous. You need to prove that the system of correct before using the system to objectively determine morality. My opponent falsely states that I have contradicted myself. I agree that homeostasis is an objective way of measuring morality but I do NOT agree that it is the correct way of doing so. To put this into a simpler analogy we can look back upon the welfarism comparison. Economic state is also an objective way of measuring morality but what makes my opponent’s system the correct system as opposed to welfarism or any other system. You can’t use a normative ethical system of morality to determine morality as objective without even trying to prove that the system is correct. Using an incorrect system of normative ethics to prove the existence of objective morality is quite frankly just ridiculous. So Pro, why is your system “correct” and not any other systems of morality? Ultimately all Pro has proven is that homeostasis and suffering are objective standards of measuring morality (but hasn’t proven that they are the correct standards) and therefore morality is objective in most scenarios with a few exceptions. It is true that morality includes action towards others. Though giving somebody knowledge (intellectualism) is also giving something towards others. Giving money (welfarism) is also giving something towards somebody. So is helping somebody to get away from suffering or helping somebody to maintain the correct homeostasis. They are all actions that fit the definition of morality. Though only one normative ethical system of morality can be correct (assuming that my opponent is correct and morality is objective). So which one is correct. If my opponent can’t prove that his system is correct then we have no reason to view it as correct and should assume it is incorrect due to the lack of evidence. If he is using an incorrect / unjustified system of morality then there is no reason for anybody to assume that he has successfully met his burden of proof. I must once again repeat that whilst the condition is objective. The fact that there are many objective ways of measuring morality and they are all different means that only one can be correct and if my opponent can’t objectively prove that his one is correct then he is subjectively choosing it, and due to the lack of evidence on his behalf defending this it is clear that this is bare assertion and not objective. Conclusion I strongly urge that voters vote on this debate based on my opponent proving that morality is objective apart from some exceptions. My opponent’s reason to vote for him based on the semantical argument deriving from the word ‘can’ in the resolution is not sufficient and has been thoroughly refuted - furthermore, semantics are against the rules. Whilst I do not want my opponent to be penalized for breaking the rules, I also do not want voters to consider this breaking of rules and should not weigh this in his favor. The resolution is clearly negated. Vote Con! Sources[1] https://www.google.co.uk... [2] https://www.google.co.uk...[3] https://www.google.co.uk...[4] https://www.google.co.uk...