args

There are universal, objective moral values

Lets get the semantic argument over with. Per dictionary.com: Objective, adjective : not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased Value, n: relative worth, merit, or importance: right, n: a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral alienate, v: to turn away; transfer or divert Pro seems to relentlessly provide examples which would promote Con's stance which is morality is all based on someone's point of view. There is no universal objective criteria that applies to all things which can be used to decide whether something is morally right or wrong. It all comes from ones own perspective and is nothing but an arbitrary idea until one controls the power to enforce his opinions on others. Pro states, "When social values keeps a society together, they are 'valuable'". They are only valuable to that particular society. Just because something is good for one person, doesn't mean it is universally good in general. From my point of view, it's good for me to survive, I admit, but I doubt cows, spinach plants, apple trees, wasps, ants, mice, moles, and bacteria would agree. All of these life forms are alienated from their "rights" to life by me, en mass, on a daily basis. If the promotion of life is morally correct, any life forms that require the consumption of other life forms is morally incorrect. It is a logical possibility that life could exist with out this necessity. Most plants do this just fine. I wonder if humans could synthesize a diet using methods that don't utilize any consumption of living things? But that is irrelevant (just like the rant about the U.S. Government.) There is no criteria to judge right from wrong. If you want a law or to have any rights, you need power to enforce it, or it will cease to exist. In Hitler's mind, as well as that of his colleagues, many of his subjects, and many subsequent fans to this day, he was doing a morally good thing. The only objective criteria one can use to say he was morally wrong is that the opinions of a larger force differed from his, and they used their power to enforce their opinions, which ultimately led the the virtual extinction of his morality. No matter what, there were 2 opposing opinions at that point in time, the one with the more powerful force is the one history will say was morally just; and will have nothing but the outcome of the power struggle to justify that claim. If Hitler had the power to enforce his will, every living human today (or at least the consensus) would consider Hitler a hero; a champion of good. I hate to keep bringing a deity into this as I wouldn't call myself a theist, but I must say if it weren't for my own selfish enjoyment of altruism and compassion, I would require a supreme god-like being offering some sort of eternal life to convince me of the value in morality. Because as of now, Pro has not convinced me that it would be morally wrong for me to obtain dominion over all living things simply for my own happiness. Once I die, how can I care? In fact, the world would have 100% less suffering if I just destroyed the entire solar system. Who could possibly care in the long run?