Matt Dillahunty's Presuppositional Argument

Morals exist because preferences exist. And preferences are good enough to build ones morals upon. Never mind HOW (by what mechanism) a thinking mind arose from pond scum through strictly evolutionary processes, or why preferences rather than not preferences. Preferences exist because preferences exist therefore morals exist objectively...except when they conflict with the next guy's-- then they're subjective, and may the best man win! Might = Right. Life is preferable to death, unless someone decides your life gets in the way of their aims, then you gotta go, because their preference told them so. Your morals told you that to work hard and earn your way is preferable to being a shirk, but ten days before retiring to your pension you are given your walking papers and a severance pittance because someone further up the food chain preferred his bottom line not get bogged down with supporting your loyal, yet-no-longer-productive service. Too bad, Jack! So-and-so is up in years or has an incurable conditon, deformity, or mental illness causing them to not pull their "fair share" of the GNP of our society. No rational argument for keeping them alive when the money could be better spent on those with an "adequate" quality of life. Let's take a vote. Verdict's in: Euthanize the poor sucker. No, history is not rife with demonstration after demonstration of where this mindset leads. This is just a straw man argument, preferentially speaking, of course.