Utilitarianism is the only viable system of morality

Pro in Round 2 stated, “... im afraid there has been a misunderstanding of the topic of this debate. … As stated, this debate requires my opponent to take the absolute moral position of traditional theism ...”I take issue with Pro, “... this debate requires my opponent to take the absolute moral position of traditional theism ...” This appeared in Round 2 not in Round 1. Therefore, my argument stands about “theism” is not the issue. Pro's nemesis is missing the fact that morality is a derivative of the physical Laws of Nature, not metaphysical.Dissecting Pro's statement in Round 1, “One great flaw in western monotheistic-based moralities is that they are not thought through and chosen on the basis of individual responsibility like humanism, but were imposed from outside in a one-size-fits-all way.”Pro confused civil, or humanist, or religious values with morality. Morality is binary. When one follows a social-accepted-value, is moral; when one does not follow this value, is immoral.The phrase, “... individual responsibility like humanism ..." implies in a “humanistic” society everyone is “responsible,” I doubt it, because of the binary nature of morality. That is, “responsible” implies moral, where irresponsible implies immoral. The question is, why single out “western monotheistic-based” values? Those values are benign relative to Middle Eastern “monotheistic-based” values, supporting a mode of conquest by killing infidels.Finally, ending with the phrase, “... but were imposed from outside in a one-size-fits-all way.” What does that mean? Pick anyone, and they will have a different interpretation of the Bible. In addition, there are many different versions of the Bible. The spectrum of faith, is on the individual level, therefore, “a one-size-fits-all” simply does not exist.Humanist and religious values are both belief systems. For example, after viewing one of Pro's youtube references in Round 2, “The Humanist Manifesto III” (https://www.youtube.com...), I went off looking for “The Humanist Manifesto I” and found the following, containing 15 affirmation statements (http://modernhistoryproject.org...): “A new religion for the socialist utopia --- by: Huxwell”"Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions... must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present... We therefore affirm the following:FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created."This went on from the “FIRST” affirmation to the 15th. According to “The Humanist Manifesto I” it is just another religion. One may argue the original “Humanist Manifesto” the Manifesto before “Manifesto I” includes “monotheistic-based” religions, for all those scriptures written about God was written by humans. Is it not logical to conclude all human written scriptures, pertaining to social-, or religious-values, are just “Humanist Manifestos” having the goal of obtaining a civil society?There is one obvious difference between Manifesto I relative to Manifesto III, that is, replacing the term “religion” with “progressive philosophy” (http://americanhumanist.org...).The late Joseph Campbell (one who studied the evolution of religions) once stated (http://www.brainyquote.com...):“Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble.”Campbell's statement holds true for all those “Humanist Manifestos” whether the religion is secular or not.The point is, there are many “theistic” belief systems that are simply not going to be replaced by some “humanistic” secular philosophy anytime soon, for the men of science have no empirical evidence of what caused the Big Bang; hence, faith (God), philosophy, and hypothetical assumptions thereof, and therefore, the evolution of belief systems will continue.As I stated in the last Round, a civil society is shared and enjoyed by both theist and atheist. Empirically, all civil societies are the result of both theist and atheist having the common link of the absolute binary states of morality. As Huxwell stated,"Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion”Man's “scientific achievements” are shared by atheist and theist. It would be constructive, if atheist would have a “... deeper appreciation of brotherhood ...” towards their theist brethren. Relative to “... a new statement of the means and purposes of religion,” the scientific method is common to all religions, and morality should be a study in educational institutions. Due to the lack of moral education, it is clear this “progressive philosophy” is not working well in the “progressive” political arena.For example, the morality factor is a fundamental agent in the foundation of the USA. This youtube overview of the USA stresses the importance of morality throughout the presentation: http://www.youtube.com...John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, stated:“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (http://www.john-adams-heritage.com...).The US is in a post constitutional era. The “progressive” movement started during President Woodrow Wilson's dynasty who was a promoter of Social Darwinism ideology, advocating little resistance to constitutional change. Wilson stated:http://books.google.com....“Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice.”Wilson also took issue with the individual's Unalienable Rights:“No doubt a great deal of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle.”Wilson rejected the foundation of the US Constitution and started a slow cancer known as the “living constitution,” and today this cancer has metastasize into a large “progressive” centralized government embracing a soft tyranny. For example, there are so many laws on the books, we commit about 3 felonies a day.http://www.amazon.com... The US citizens are losing their moral compass substituted by the tyranny of a police stateIn closing, one would expect “Humanist” would embrace the scientific education of morality. The question is, would a “progressive” ruling-class oligarch support scientific education of morality being a derivative of the physical Laws of Nature knowing life's Unalienable Rights is the linkage to the Constructal Law? Those Rights, the esteem “progressive” Wilson declared as “nonsense.”