Morality is Indirectly Objective

1. I have answered this previously. The fact that humans are fallible does not mean that there is no objective truth. My previous example: humans can make mathematical mistakes, but there is still a purity in the mathematical solution. 2. My entire argument led to the fact that morality is objective through its logical analysis. If my opponent had brought this up in the original rebuttal, I could have answered how it is that humans can analyze an informational construct logically. However, my opponent did not. To complete my analytical links, I shall do so anyway at the end of my argument. If you follow the links of my original statement and then look at my concluding statement, a clear definition of objective can be seen. By reading the statement I made, the meaning of my assertion "Morality is objective" should be made clear. The fact that your own definition said that objective is hard to describe and has many definitions makes it irrelevant. I was also using a different definition of objective. My argument logically flows that morality is objective. 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. 2a. "I'm unsure as to why my opponent is under the assumption that he is exempt from providing sources for his line of thinking. This is standard procedure. " There is no official procedure or rules for debate. If a policy is being supposed, evidence is highly necessary to prove a point. However, analytics is perfectly acceptable as well. As long as my analysis flows and is reasonable, evidence might not be necessary. Evidence can be proof, but proof can also come in the form of analytical links. "I'm looking for books, articles, journals, etc. which expound on his points and lend credibility to his argument" 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. 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. 2b. "I've already shown why morality cannot be compared to mathematics in objectivity. It does not rely on any of the axioms of logic so my opponent has yet to prove this contention as well. " I have not once stated that morality can be compared to mathematics. It itself doesn't rely on the axioms of logic. I merely stated that logic and mathematics are comparable. This point is proven in my previous arguments. 3a. It is a little bit frustrating and insulting when my opponent demeans my argument as being irrelevant and not an actual debate, especially when my opponent has still not challenged any of my analysis. Apology accepted, and I apologize as well. Let's have a good finish to our debate :) 3b. "Now, the existence of the mind in no way supports for the truth of morality through objective means. Even if morality was to exist within the mind, you must still provide sufficient evidence that it holds truth for your resolution to be affirmed. " I don't mean this to be an insult, but I think once again that my opponent does not understand my argument. I did not suppose that the existence of the mind "supports for the truth of morality". Therefore, my opponent's need of evidence of this is empty. I did not claim this. 3c. Have already responded to this 3d. I have described this before. I will clarify, as I said before, at the end of this argument. ii. I have described before the logical basis for morality. I have previously described the definition of objectivity. I am not sure why my opponent thinks that I am claiming that morality "exists in the mind", as she has stated before, and here as well. I have addressed all of these. For clarification, here is the logical basis for morality: Morality is an informational system. Therefore, it has an informational purity. These points have been proven previously. Humans analyze this purity through logic. Logic, having many different variations and fields, follows a few basic rules to analyze continuity in information. Just as mathematics many different variations and fields, but in its simplest form, has a few basic rules to analyze mathematical continuity. Therefore, humans analyze mathematical problems to arrive at a mathematical purity, and therefore can achieve objective truth, although mistakes in analysis can be made. Humans analyze information through logic to achieve objective truth. Example: Premise- All balls are red Premise- John has a ball Conclusion- John's ball is red Humans can analyze an informational system such as morality to extract objective truth. By logically analyzing a moral system (a devised system in which intelligent informational processors act in regard to other forms of life and other informational processors), one could come to a logically pure system, a system of morality that fairly governs what establishes the best outcome for all people involved in a situation. The most basic moral assertion made by nearly all societies in the past: Murder is wrong. Murder causes great social harm and undermines social order and security. Since all people are fundamentally the same, the only fair way to treat people is as fundamentally the same. Logically, the best way to achieve ultimate utility and happiness and to achieve an orderly, fair, happy society is by making murder wrong. This is an analysis of a moral situation. Humans have devised different moral codes in the past, with murder being a central point in nearly all of them. By analyzing what is best for the individual and the collective and analyzing what behaviors are unacceptable, then systems of morality can be developed. Morality does not have to exist inherently in the universe to be objective. Connect this argument with all previously explained arguments. There are still no analytical flaws in my argument that my opponent has brought up. CONCLUSION My opponent can demand that I provide sources all that she wants and claim that it is mandatory for Debate. org, but that does not make it so. Analytical links CAN be sufficient proof. I have already explained that morality is objective inherently by being an informational system. Truth value comes from a lack of flaws in an analysis, as is with a mathematical truth. If there are no flaws in a mathematical analysis, it becomes mathematical proof. My opponent has made no attempt to challenge the actual analysis in my argument. As a mostly analytical argument, this makes its negation unlikely. Since throughout the debate my opponent has not challenged my analysis, I extend all analysis, and assert that any criticism given now is solely for the purpose of making me not be able to answer in the final round. Since my analysis has no supposed flaws by my opponent, I would say that it is not invalidated and is correct. We have both been straightforward and maybe a little blunt and I would not say any major conduct rules have been violated by either. As far as sources go, I correctly cited Descartes and my opponent misused a definition to try to prove my definition incorrect. My other non-use of sources is irrelevant to the source vote, as they were unnecessary and my argument was purely analytics (which is perfectly acceptable in a debate). My assertion that morality is objective stands.