morality

I am going to use this space to dismantle your statements in an organized fashion by posting an initial quotation, then offering a rebuttal to that statement of your speech. These may be slightly paraphrased to make them easier to read. 1. "Information exists beyond space and time, not real, morality is also not real. I cannot grab it with my hand, but is guided by absolutes and is therefore absolute." 1.a. This statement is a non sequitur. Information, is facts provided or learned about something or someone. This is what information is. How can information exist outside of space and time if nothing exists outside of space and time. Information does not physically manifest, this is why you cannot grab it. However you can find evidence for the existence of information everywhere in human societies, because information is a human invention of cognition. Morality and Information differ greatly on this point however. Information is a concept that seeks factual hard data. Morality is a social construct to regulate societal cohesion. 2. "You would not be happy if I pushed you off a cliff, but luckily you survive." 2.a. If we lived in your lessened gravity alternate existence, why would I be unhappy? This is a rhetorical question. In the moral construct that we exist in, in the United States, it is immoral to act on another person in a way that removes their freedom of choice. Meaning that the morality of the cliff scenario has nothing to do with whether or not I am safe or unsafe in the push, it has to do with your actions clashing with the ideal morality that we have in our society; you pushing me against my will. 3. "It is more reasonable to push superman off a cliff than a regular person." 3.a. Though each action has a separate consequence, the immorality of the situation falls upon the actor not the outcome. You are suggesting that the death can be moral or immoral. You cannot describe thing as moral or immoral, example: "It is an immoral brick". This does not make sense. Morality needs much human context to make sense, example: "It is immoral for you to throw a brick." This contains the ego to ascribe the ability to get morality but this still lacks the societal context required to determine culturally decided morality. Correct example: "It is immoral for you to throw bricks at children." This is important because you could find a country or civilization that actually thinks that simply throwing bricks is immoral. Just as the Japanese think wearing shoes indoors is immoral. 4. "Cause and effect is logic." 4.a. This is false. Cause and effect are the principles of causality. Logic is the cognitive process implemented by the human mind to infer patterns from previous experiences of causality. You're positing that logic exists outside of human cognition which is not the case. 5. "Logic and experience is reason" 5.a. Reason also simply the ability to deduce effect without applying cause. Basically imagination. 6. "Reason and intent is morality." 6.a. Why 4-6 don't work: Cause: "When I don't eat" Effect: "My tummy hurts." Causal linking: " When I don't eat, my tummy hurts." Solution: "So I eat so my tummy wont hurt." Morality? " I feel physically better when I eat, therefore it is morally good when I eat." 7. "Belief is unreasonable" 7.a. This assertion is false. You are ignoring the 3 basic assumptions of epistemology. 8. "Knowledge is reasonable" 8.a. This statement is nonsense because knowledge is the human cataloging of factual data from reality, reason is the ability of extrapolate variables to reach plausible conclusions. Now I will go into personal thought and pose my own argument even though it should seem clear from what is said above. (I'm going to break this down as simply as I can) Information, knowledge and cognition are all concepts that would apply to existence whether or not we exist with the confines of that existence. This is because the information and knowledge that is recorded about existence is factual and true from our ability to perceive reality. An example of knowledge is that there exists one star in our solar-system. Factual, objective and observation, there no means of misinterpreting this data provided you know the language. Cognition of factual knowledge is very different from cognition of cultural knowledge. We as human beings have developed habits and have become centralized around strong civilizations. For instance Asian cultures differ greatly from Western European cultures. We do perceive all of our factual knowledge about existence similarly however, Japan and the United Kingdom both agree that there is only one star in our solar-system. A big cultural difference is that it is acceptable and even encouraged to wear one's shoes in another person's residence or until given permission to remove them. In Japan it is very discourteous for a person to wear shoes in another person's residence. These are examples of morality. While a culture has shaped moralities that are more specific to their region several moralities are shared among many cultures. In many cultures it is unacceptable to kill people, this is because it is very detrimental to the structure of society and causes a lot of pain for people who have become cognitively attached to the murder victims. These are known as universal moralities, but they too are shaped by the developments that humanity has made as a whole. For instance, did you know that just 2,000 - 1,500 years ago it was encouraged to murder people for believing in a different religion than your own? This was a shared moral belief by cultures all throughout the world and is still implemented to this day by some cultures even though the vast majority of mankind discourages this. As you can see from these examples, and from any other example you can create, morality can only exist within the confines of mankind.