args

There are universal, objective moral values

Con started the round with, “First let me define some of my terms, I think you might have been using different definitions. When I said "objective" I meant "not based on someone's opinions", I didn't mean a purpose or goal.” Con stated what “objective” was not, but failed to defined “objective” relative to his argument. Advice to Con, when starting a debate, one must make their definitions clear! Con went on to say, “And when I said "values", I didn't mean "a numerical amount (or the verbal equivalent)", I meant "worthwhile", "valuable", etc.” Con's values is Pro's social values. Values, aka social values, comes from morality. All cultures have values, traditions, beliefs, and language and these social traits can only come from morality. When social values keeps a society together, they are “valuable.” Therefore, morality is universal and an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights. Con stated, “You then go on to say that "life's unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of positive-feedback" is not a man-made idea, instead it's part of the physical laws of nature. Nothing has a right to life, there are infinite amounts of lives that don't exist. Did they choose to waive their rights?” Yes, one could choose to “waive their rights,” it is called suicide. All life has the Right to Life; otherwise, there is no life. In this universe, we have life; hence, the Right to Life. Life's Unalienable Rights is simply a bio-program where once alive all “Life,” must have the freedom (“Liberty”) in "the pursuit of" survival; otherwise, there is no life. Since we have life, survival is a form of positive-feedback and a prerequisite for human “Happiness” (http://www.amazon.com...). Unbeknownst to Thomas Jefferson (author of the US Declaration of Independence), he discovered, not developed, a primeval working function or life's bio-program found throughout all living-systems. He claimed a polished version of this primeval function, within the scope of humanity, giving it the label of Unalienable Rights in the celebrated form of, “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” We could play the word game and get trapped in semantics on the definition of “rights,” however, Jefferson used the label, “Unalienable Rights,” and that is just a label to a primeval working function, or a bio-program, found in all life. “Unalienable” is a fact, for when alienating any of those bio-program terms or “Rights” the result is death. Notably, it would be impossible to take away any one of the Rights while leaving the other two intact, as all of the Rights are dependent on one another. Without Life, one cannot enjoy Liberty or pursue Happiness. Without Liberty, one cannot pursue Happiness, and as this pursuit often overlaps with the pursuit of survival, one is unable to continue Life. Without the pursuit of Happiness/survival, one cannot continue Life or enjoy Liberty. Because of their interdependency and tendency to wane simultaneously with various degrees of obstruction, the three Rights define a spectrum of positions. The positive end of the spectrum is a position of Life, Liberty, and Happiness (positive-feedback), while the negative end is a position of Death, Tyranny, and Distress (negative-feedback). The spectrums between Life and Death, Liberty and Tyranny, and Happiness and Distress, entertains a natural tendency during the struggle of survival to support, prolong, and improve “Life.” At the same time, there is an inherent drive to increase freedom (“Liberty”), with an ongoing effort to reduce and optimize the energy expended during “the pursuit of” an objective, while increasing and exploring new levels of “Happiness,” fulfillment, pleasure, and anything to do with positive-feedback. Life's Unalienable Rights helps life to thrive within the matrix of the Laws of Nature and interact with other living-systems. A bio-program, having an organically persuasive, self-adjusting, fine-tuning algorithm throughout the flux of life's Unalienable Rights; encouraging life to take the path of least resistance, in the attempt to satisfy the pursuit of its objectives, to maintain survival, or search for new levels of positive-feedback; this is the machinery of evolution and the Natural Selection Process. Con gave a number examples of Unalienable Rights can be “completely alienable.” Unalienable, we have life; alienable, we have death. Taking one of Con's examples will cover them all, “What happened to the unalienable rights of my food?” There are no inconsistencies with a nature-wide Unalienable Right to Life with the fact that all animal-life depends on killing other animals or at least plants for food. “The world is one big restaurant.” We humans are free to dine in a universe where we too could be the next meal from the appetite of viruses, parasites, cancer, occasionally lions, tigers, bears, etc. Therefore, nature is not cruel or kind, just indifferent as it gives all life the Right to Life through Liberty in the pursuit of survival. Survival includes the evolution of reproductive quantity, self-defense and hunting skills. This balance in nature made the evolution of life, which includes humans, possible. Morality is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights and therefore, part of the Laws of Nature, not man-made. Morality is simply embraces mutual positive-feedback between two or more entities, in group formation. Since morality is part of the Laws of Nature, it is universal. Con continues his God rant by stating, “A deity with less power than omnipotence can hardly be called a god.” As for beliefs in the super-natural or God, “omnipotence” or not, they are a function of cultural evolution via the machinery of morality coupled with Unalienable Rights. If beliefs enhances the moral equation, only benefits the efficiency of group formation and endurance through time. Therefore, beliefs serves a function in group formation. For example, Pro lives in the US observing these modern times as the power of beliefs give way to secularism. The traditional view of morality rest with religious organizations which blossoms through the home. Today's educational systems are becoming schizophrenic about the importance of morality in a secular society, and who is responsible for its teachings. If society does not have a good understanding of morality, more complicated laws emerge trying to keep the peace, institutional public surveillance becomes commonplace, militarization in law-enforcement is noticeable. Complicated laws morph into plundering dictates, while regulations kill economic freedom. In addition, the leaders of government are also part of this population having similar moral standing. If government controls education, then the moral decline will result in a soft tyranny. John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, once said, “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...). Today the US is in a post Constitutional era while the ruling-class embraces a slow cancer known as the “living constitution,” and this cancer has metastasize. Today's Congress represents the lobbyist not the people, while the President, unconstitutionally, has a “pen and a phone” to make law, the administration branch (a fourth branch, not part of the Constitution's three branches) is made up of hundreds of departments (IRS, NSA, EPA, etc.). These departments employ hundreds of thousands of non-elected government employees, writing regulations having the same power as law, to control, monitor us, etc. Today, the people are essentially out of the loop, except on Election Day, and look what choices we have. There are basic “universal, objective moral values” to keep a group or society civil that protects and embraces the individual's Unalienable Rights. For example: Thou shall not kill. Thou shall embrace their neighbor's Unalienable Rights. From a “universal” standpoint, thou shall strive, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested norms within one's culture. From this “universal, objective moral” standpoint, society moves in the positive end of the spectrum towards the position of Life, Liberty, and Happiness (positive-feedback), otherwise, the position of Death, Tyranny, and Distress (negative-feedback) will be the outcome from moral ignorance. Going back to the US example, we are currently in a soft tyranny moving towards a hard tyranny relative to our Constitutional founding that was to support and protect Unalienable Rights. Again, today the US is in a post-constitutional soft tyranny era. For example, if my Friend Con lives in the US, Con probably did something “illegal” today. If the government wants to incarcerate Con, or spoil Con's day, or freeze Con's bank accounts, etc., they could because there are so many laws on the books, on the average we commit 3 felonies a day. http://www.amazon.com... http://blogs.loc.gov... As Lavrenti Beria, chief of Josef Stalin's secret police, once stated, “You bring me the man, I'll find you the crime” (http://www.qotd.org...). Funny how many in the US, still feels they live in a free country. The price a nation pays for lack of moral education.