Morality is Indirectly Objective

1. Morality does not necessarily have to be inherent in the universe. The informational universe does not necessarily have to exist, and is almost a "tier" of existence in a way. Everything that humans currently know about the universe is that of solely material matter and empty space, other than life on Earth. That point was asserting that morality (and the informational universe) is not inherent in the universe's existence. It can develop, and become a part of the universe. Logic is an inherent part of the "informational universe". 2. Morality is an informational system created by informational processing systems like humans. Being an informational construct, it has deducible truths that are objective relative to the informational universe, which is not inherent in the physical universe. Therefore it can have informational objectivity without having inherency in the universe. 2a. This assertion has been substantiated by working into my philosophical view. This view encompasses many popular philosophical topics, such as immateriality, the universe, personal identity, morality, and a few others. To my opponent's second point in 2a, morality is a system created by humans in nearly every culture as a system of how people (moral agents) should treat each other, and other forms of life. It has been historically used as a code for societies to abide by, and violation could be punished. However, within the status quo for the sake of practicality, we must use a system of law and punishment to govern human interaction. This does not mean that a system of law will always be necessary to govern human interaction. But within the status quo, morality is still important to maintain a fair system of law. Without people fighting for moral truths within our system of law, the only law that would exist would be law that maintains order in society, or relies on legal precedent. 2b. While Wikipedia in my opinion is pretty reliable, it is not a great source for philosophy definitions. The definition my opponent gave is straight from the top of the Wikipedia page for "Objectivity (philosophy)". She, however, didn't include the beginning of that sentence: "While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity. .. " This is not the claim I am making, and it is hardly a contradiction in my logic. When I claimed that morality is "objective", I am making the claim that morality is inherent within the informational universe, and is the most basic and pure system of informational communication. The resolution is has had no valid criticism as of now, and is safely confirmed. As I will explain later, my opponent's criticism about evidence is unfounded. 3a. The universe has become, as I assert, dual. Being only material substance originally (as our knowledge currently suggests), the universe at its beginning consisted of only material matter. When life developed on Earth, that material matter arranged into informational processing systems, which evolved into current forms of life. Unless my opponent wants to debate Abiogenesis, this point is the best way of describing the development of a duality within the universe (which I have described before as being like "tiers"). This answers why the informational universe is not inherent in the physical universe, but the universe can currently be dual. As I stated before, I will make a point about evidence later. 3b. I already stated: "-Descartes' proof of the mind's existence proves that informational processing exists, as doubt is an act of thinking, or informational processing. -This indirectly proves reality exists, which refutes any solipsist or epistemological nihilism arguments. " My opponent is now suggesting that I must first prove reality, or the material universe, to suppose the existence of the informational universe. Although this may seem logically true, I have already given a testable proof of the informational universe. Proving the existence of the material universe is also a testable claim, and the entire point of the system of views I propose is to give the best explanation of the relationship between these two "universes" of information and material things. My argument has not in the least bit "fallen apart". I will restate, my argument about evidence is later. 3c. My opponent is working with a flawed, partial definition of objectivity from Wikipedia that I am not using. There is no contradiction, so her point is irrelevant. I think the confusion here came from a misunderstanding. Humans did not "create morality". Humans create moral systems, but morality itself is inherent with the informational universe. 3d. The points in this quote about morality's objectivity and inherency have already been addressed. i. Since humans are informational processing systems, they have the capacity to perceive and calculate logic. Obviously being flawed, we can make mistakes with logic, just like we can make mathematical mistakes. Just because humans can make mathematical mistakes does not mean that there is not a mathematical purity. If one correctly perceives the rules of mathematics, there is an attainable purity that is testable. As with logic, just because humans make logical mistakes does not negate that there is a logical purity. ii. My opponent has in no way brought about any valid criticisms. I have answered previously about morality's inherency and objectivity. My opponent has only brought about semantic objections to my argument, which have all been explained. There is therefore no reason to vote Con. -My final and unifying point for many of my opponent's criticisms is about "evidence". The claims that I have made are logically or physically testable, and do not require evidence. My opponent claims that since there is no "evidence", there is no verification. This is profoundly untrue. As she stated, she only attacked semantics, which were all explained. No fallacies were proven. This being a purely philosophical argument about a proposed philosophical system, sources are not needed, unless I am taking a definition or idea from somewhere. Since sources are voting criteria that are irrelevant, I would suggest to voters that they vote "tied" on sources, unless they want to take off points for my opponent misusing already unreliable sources. As I said, before, the entire point of my argument is to propose a philosophical system. It's merit is in its ability to explain, and does not require that I quote irrelevant sources. My system of understanding explains many classic problems with other systems of understanding, like Physicallism and Dualism. The problems with other systems of understanding like Physicallism and Dualism lead into many problems in other areas in philosophy, like morality. That is why I propose this system, to best explain all of these problems.