Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

No, I don't. You're just wrong a lot. I'd do the same for anyone else. =pYeah, that must be why you've abandoned all your other arguments against me... =/Conscionable behavior held dear by the majority of society is foundational to human civilization.Man is able to function outside of a state of natureYou say these statements DON'T imply that the consciousness is unnatural? Wow, perhaps it's you making the logical leaps.If consciousness is natural, then why "hold it dear"? There's no need, it would be factual. If consciousness is natural, then how is it a function outside of nature? This is a direct contradiction.You are wrong by your own words.You've misunderstood me dreadfully. Laws against murder, theft, rape, those all existed, even waaaaaay back in the time of So-Crates.Ah, forgive me. I assumed your argument in the most logical manner, but YOU meant it in a much less intelligent light. Simply because man conceived of morality in the past does in NO way prove morality is objective. This is a non-sequitur at best...http://www.jstor.org/pss/4534969This paper set out to show a higher cognitive ability in apes. This has set out to show apes recognize social construct, not that they are philosophers of morality. But even if it did, this would also in no way prove that morals are objective. This too is a non-sequitur.Did you even read this before posting it???http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?fta=y&pagewanted=all Ok, understand, social construct =/= morality. I don't steal things, not because I'd feel bad about it later, but because it's detrimental to my reputation and I prefer to not be a pariah.Likewise, if a monkey chooses not to steal from another monkey it will be because he fears the disutility of getting caught, NOT because he'd mentally punish himself for it later.Morality isn't needed for society to function, or even for an individual to function. All morality is, is ones preferences super-imposed as rules. Even if monkeys and apes were moral philosophers, that too would in NO WAY prove morals are objective. Again, you are wrong.Allow me to paraphrase: "Evolutionary morals? Unnatural! XD"Even if this is what you meant, it's still irrelevant and untrue. Can you say "c-c-c-c-conjecture?" Link a study, genius! XDHave you never known children? Do you think they don't steal? Or is it that you think only through self-punishment will they stop.. =/I am proof that one can be both a moral-nihilist AND not a thief. Hell, even as a kid it wasn't the act that I feared, but the effects of being caught. Do you know what conjecture is? It's a proposition that is unproven but appears correct and has not been disproven. Unless you know of an objective means to rip thoughts out of a child's head, then you're only left with what appears correct and has (can) not be disproven. The reason I don't steal comes from my natural and rational desire to not ostracize myself. There's no morality involved.I linked it because it was general enough to give a vague idea of a vast area of study, maybe inspire you to go to YouTube and view one of countless lectures on the subject, maybe go to Google and type in "Primate morality." You know, I hoped that it might inspire--I don't know--thought. You're a liar. You linked it because you thought it was relevant. It wasn't. You made this reason up specifically because I called you out on this idiocy. If you wanted me to look studies up, you would have just said so. Or, at least you would have posted it in the dispute, NOT as "supporting evidence"... which it was not.Ever heard of a library?Or do you just dislike unnecessary reading?Am I to rent a book from a library when it isn't even out? Do you expect me to wait two months, read the book, then come back here and continue debating? No, I'm not going to do that. You're going to have to debate on your own merits.Don't sell yourself short. I didn't expect that you would somehow not notice that the book hadn't been released. Like I said, it was the most generic link I could think of, considering that I can only embed one in every post. ... You're saying that because you could only post one link you figured it logical to post that which supported you the LEAST?!? I'm not buying it. You tried to pull a fast one on me and it failed. That's what has happened here. Again, I hoped that the preview of the book would spark your interest. I apparently missed that there was nothing to ignite.The author makes the argument that morality is biologically-based. Which, granted, is not the argument I'm making, but it specifically refutes the claim you made and is not exclusive to those that I make.You're a fool. You assumed I hadn't read up on this topic already, when just the opposite was true to a least the extent that I could easily confer this ad has nothing to do with your position. Just, don't do such foolish things. =/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww Yeah, it's too much to argue point-by-point. I'll just say this: Everyone has different preferences. Their morality is based on their preferences. Preferences are natural, but super-imposing them as "oughts" for all to follow is not. It is a social construct built into children that there is an objective code of behavior to follow.