Morality is Indirectly Objective

Thank you for your response. >> REBUTTALS<< 1. If the informational universe does not have to necessarily exist, and logic is the language of that universe which then proves morality, then by extension – morality does not necessarily exist. And that certainly creates skepticism about what you are attempting to prove. If you say morality is objective as you are trying to prove, than the existence of the informational world must be true for that premise to be justifiable otherwise your entire argument falls apart. Can you truly affirm the resolution when it’s based off of something which “does not not necessarily have to exist”? 2. Not true. Since you did not provide a definition for objective, the onus was on me to provide one which I did. It is the most commonly accepted definition for objective in a philosophical sense. When something is created by humans, it has been subjected to personal bias and perspective from the conscious being that is responsible for its creation. It cannot be “mind-independent” and therefore, it is not objective. Also, if I’m reading this right, you are claiming 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). Well, that is a non-sequitur. No one would doubt that people process information about morality. However, you have not shown how those truths relate to objective moral truths. It is, for example, true to say that I am thinking about God as I am writing this sentence. This does not mean that God actually exists independently of my thoughts about him. 2a. i. Within a debate, contentions are not taken at face-value. You must provide proof for it to be taken into account during the debate. Since you have not done so, I’m not entirely concerned with your philosophical view as that proves nothing other than your attempts to philosophize along with the rest of us. ii. Morality is not necessary, even within a society. But this is merely shifting the focus of the debate. Let’s drop this contention and focus on the debate at hand. 2b. That definition is widely accepted, regardless of it being from a Wikipedia page. If you have gone through other debates, you’ll notice that most definitions do in fact come from Wikipedia and that is not held against the debaters. But if you are concerned with its viability, I give you another source: “Objective judgments and claims are assumed to be free from personal considerations, emotional perspectives, etc. ” [1] When you state at the beginning that humans created morality, you have forfeited the ability to claim that morality is therefore objective. The only way a human could create these standards is from personal considerations of what they deem to be right and wrongful actions. Truly, you are equivocating the definitions of objective. 3a. Since no evidence was provided and my opponent continued to claim unsubstantiated assertions, this contention remains unproven. 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. '" i. That does nothing to prove your contention. A quote is not proof. ii. No conclusive proof has been brought forward within this debate. Quotes and assertions are nothing without evidence. And like I said, you assume the existence of the material world without giving any basis for the assumption. This is a debate – you must put forth the contention with more than personal opinions. Since the informational world, the origin of morality, only exists if the material world does, you must show solid proof for the material world. You have not, so 3b is still unaddressed. 3c. Since you did not provide a definition, it was up to me to provide one. Since it is a solid definition which is accepted by philosophers and students, it is accepted and used within the debate. The only way my definition could be challenged would be if it was radically different than one found in the dictionary and I assure you, it is not. Also, even if the humans created the moral systems – the morals themselves are still subjected to bias and personal considerations which negates the objectivity of it. 3d. Objectivity is meant to be free from human’s personal biases and considerations. For example, if I were to state “I am 5’9””, that is an objective truth since it is a fact free from anything deemed to be subjective or emotive. But what you are asserting as logic cannot be compared to my example since you have yet to give the logical basis for the morality. Logic is based on a set of non-reducible axioms (i. e. , the laws of logic. ) 1. The law of identity 2. The law of the excluded middle 3. The law of non-contradiction This is why certain things can be objectively true about logic. What axioms are you basing morality on? Since this remains opaque, your comparison is flawed. If since you do not have axioms to base your system on, you do not have a case. ii. All explanations failed since you have yet to justify anything. You have merely evaded. This is not proper debate etiquette and should be held against you once voting commences. Debate is the use of persuasive reasoning with support of evidence or proof which affirms your case. You have definitely asserted your opinion on the resolution but your failure at supporting it with any valid reasoning or proof is detrimental overall. iii. All assertions within the debate require proof. To say otherwise is simply for evasion of what you cannot prove and to save yourself from being pushed into a corner. That might work against someone else but not against me. You must put forth evidence for any validity to be found. That is why I have provided definitions to verify my meaning and sources. The only reason I have stuck with semantics is because you have yet to put forth a case! Once you actually start supporting what you claim, I can use opposing evidence and sources. Until then, I can only point out the abundance of flaws in your reasoning while hoping you realize the error in your ways by refusing to give sources. I urge you to look at other philosophical debates where an abundance of proof is used. For example: . http://www.debate.org... [CONCLUSION] To summarize, this was a disappointing round. My opponent has not proven the existence of objective morality and has instead undermined his own case. His refusal to accept a clearly valid definition is sad and I would hope he would be more forthcoming within the debate about his skepticism towards its validity. If he cannot explain why it is wrong, or provide an alternative definition, than that is simply his problem to deal with during the voting period. But to criticize my definition without proper explanation or the graciousness of his own definition is adversarial to the high standards imposed during debating on Debate. org. His refusal to provide any evidence, and his weak appeal of him being exempt from the Burden of Proof based on the genre of this debate, should count against him. I have explained why it is necessary for two rounds now. And he has yet to even prove the objective truths he is affirming! All in all, this debate would be much stronger if he ascribed to the same idea of what a “debate” truly is. Until then, please be aware of this while voting so we may warn future debaters who make the same mistakes. Resolution Negated.