Morality is Indirectly Objective

Thanks for the reply. Let the last round begin! 1. I don’t think you understand my rebuttal. I’ve already shown that the morality you are describing cannot be objective due to it being created by humans and not relying upon any Laws of Logic. Therefore, there is no “logical purity” in its creation since its objectivity is not the same as mathematics and cannot be justified like its foundation is logical. 2. I sincerely hope you are kidding! In Round 2, I put forth the three axioms which the laws of Logic rely upon and asked which axiom morality depended upon. I even gave the same example using height. I’ve grown tired of this evasion. “The product of human reasoning can be pure, although humans can make mistake. They can attain mathematical and logical truth. For this reason, my argument is not invalidated. ” Once again, you have shown that you do not understand my rebuttal. See 1a. 2a. Here’s an example of an analytic argument (simplified Ontological Argument): 1. God is possible. 2. If God exists, God necessarily exists. 3. If God does not exist necessarily, God is not possible. 4. God is possible. 5. Therefore God necessarily exists. Now, in a debate, how would you challenge that? Well, you would attack the earliest contention and ask for evidence. Or you would ask for definitions of “God” or “possible”. This is exactly what I have done with your argument. So far you are the only one who is shocked at the use of evidence. “This is pretty unnecessary. I could find articles and journals that agree with me, but that has no bearing on whether or not my analysis is valid. ” That is not the reason why I ask for the articles and journals. It’s too late now. “I do not think I am exempt from providing sources. In other less philosophical debates, I have used a plethora of evidence. However, for my argument here, citing sources is pretty unnecessary. I would ask my opponent to go after my actual analysis instead of definitions and sources. ” In a less philosophical debate? Philosophy requires evidence just like any other subject. I’ve already provided an example of a philosophical debate which used multiple sources. 2b. You stated, and I quote, in Round 1: Morality provably has objective truth through logic. So, through logic, morality can be proven. This means that the morality created by the humans is based off of logic – and by extension, it would have to be predicated on the axioms. Since you have conceded that it doesn’t rely on the axioms of logic, it is not logical and therefore, not proven through logic. 3a. I have challenged enough to prove the Burden of Proof has not been met. 3b. Once again, look at this from Round 1: Morality provably has objective truth through logic. Here you claim that you can prove that morality has truth through logic. You have shown neither the truth and conceded that it is not logically based. QED. 3c. Have already negated this. 3d. You claim that information processing exists in the universe. Morality is a form of information processing. Therefore, truths exist about that information processing (i. e. , information processing about morality). However, your move from (A) to (B) is a non-sequitur. No one would doubt that people process information about morality. I'd be willing to grant that. What you have not shown, however, is how those truths relate to objective moral truths. It is, for example, true to say that I am thinking about Santa Clause as I am writing this sentence. This does not mean that Santa Clause actually exists independently of my thoughts about him. Now, add my previous arguments in regards to the definition of objective, the unsupported contentions, your concession of the lack of logical justification (due to morality not relying upon any axioms of logic) and the fact that you have not proven morality is true through logic, and the resolution is negated. Resolution Negated.