Morality is Indirectly Objective

1. Sure. In my model of the informational and material, the informational does not necessarily have to exist. It is almost a "tier". The fact is that it definitely exists, proven by human existence. We are informational processing beings dealing with information. Since that tier exists, I am claiming that morality has deducible objective truths, as it is an informational system with logical purity. This is not a problem in the model whatsoever. Because the informational world provably exists, this isn't an issue (Descartes' proof of mind). 2. My opponent gives no reason to believe that this point is "not true". Systems developed by humans can have attainable objective truth, like mathematics and logic, by using proofs. Therefore, although humans "created" mathematics, its rules are inherent in the universe, and were almost "discovered". It is the same with basic logical functions. There can be human error, but the point of these systems is to attain a truth or purity. That is where logical proofs and mathematical theorems come from, because they are always true. The entire way that I have clearly laid out my system of understanding has implied a definition of objective, whenever I have discussed it. I have many times in my argument discussed "attainable objective truth" which implies a type of objectivity within itself. In fact, I would say my entire initial argument was describing the way it was objective. I stated my claim, "Morality is indirectly objective", and explained exactly how and why it is, and what it means to be objective. My opponent cannot misquote a definition that clearly doesn't apply, and say that my system is refuted, as I was never asserting that in the first place. Please do try to have honest tactics. My apologies to my opponent, but you are reading that incorrectly. Morality is not "a form of information processing". It is a product of information processing, and an informational system. Like any physical system with mathematics, it has deducible truths with logic when working within the framework of the system. My opponent's "God" argument is invalid and irrelevant. 2a. i. My contention is not expected to be taken at face-value. "Proof" is not necessary for my philosophical analysis. My opponent repeatedly says that evidence is necessary to "prove" my argument. My opponent is shifting the focus of the debate herself. Physical evidence is not required for a philosophical system. All of my points stem from philosophical problems, which are solved by my system. The solvency of all issues with my system, as well as proofs that have gone unrecognized by my opponent (ex: Descartes' proof of the mind) validate my system. This is all an analysis, which my opponent cannot refute or find a flaw in. ii. Saying that morality is not necessary is like saying that calculus is not necessary. They are both developed systems from basic languages (math/logic) that are important, but I fail to see my opponent's point. A society could potential exist without morality, but it is still a system that exists in logic. I object to my opponent's insult that I am shifting the focus of the debate, as the relevance of morality is significant in my system. 2b. How "widely excepted" definitions are is irrelevant. I extend my previous argument about my definition. That is what my entire first argument was: contextualizing and proving its objectivity. Also, my opponent's definition, although slightly incorrect, still does not disprove my point. Logic is "free from personal considerations". Although humans developed a system of expressing logical truth, there is still attainable logical truth. The exact same argument fails at analysis of mathematics. Would my opponent say "since mathematics is a system created by humans, it cannot have mathematical truth, and is open to personal bias"? I doubt it. Mathematics is a language, as is logic. A language is a system of agreed upon meanings to convey information about things we all experience and perceive, aka the objective. Mathematics and logic, existing outside of human perception, have attainable objective truth. 3a. This is no contention. As I have stated many times about evidence, my opponent fails to understand philosophical debate and discussion. This is about a system of understanding that best solves philosophical problems. As stated throughout my arguments, there are logical proofs. My opponent is merely taking points out of context that work into my system of understanding. If my opponent could come up with any actual objection, philosophical problem that is unsolved, or flaw in my logic, then that would be good criticism. Taking things out of context, claiming definitions that aren't used, and insulting me is not a valid criticism. No offense to my opponent, but I am disappointed in her conduct. Although I have been firm in my arguments and directly described my opponent's failures to understand my system, I have not insulted my opponent. Although I believe that she is incorrect, I am plainly laying out a framework and argument to be discussed. Please, let's have a formal debate. 3b. Once again, this is a misunderstanding on the side of my opponent. My opponent said that "a quote is not proof". I was quoting myself from my first argument, because my opponent had failed to understand my point. I quoted myself and gave a better description. My original argument was Descartes' proof of the mind, which I presented descriptively instead of in the form of a logical proof. Descartes' famously put "I think, therefore I am" is originally a logical proof, stating the futility and contradiction in denying the mind's existence. I used this to prove the mind's existence, and my original description of what the mind is and how this fits into my system is already described. 3c. I hate to sound repetitive, but this is another misunderstanding of my opponent. Please refer to 2b. Humans are not biased with mathematics or logic. There is no mathematical or logical bias, only mathematical and logical mistakes. Detailed description of this point can be seen in previous arguments, and also in 2b of this argument. 3d. I have already discussed the definition of objective in this argument, and all previous arguments. I have given the logical basis for morality. New arguments cannot be brought up at this point, unless it is in response to a new argument of mine. Since it is not, please ignore this part of my opponent's argument. ii. I have not evaded anything. I have laid out a philosophical system of understanding, it all being a critical analysis that requires no quoted evidence (although I provide some anyway). My opponent completely fails to understand debate. I feel that my opponent's slandering and insults should be held against her, if she is going to try to inspire voting against me for etiquette. I have done nothing wrong, and am still waiting for any valid criticism of my analysis, or why my analysis fails. I have yet to hear any response which refutes my system. iii. Once again, I have not been put in any corner or evaded anything. I have put forth my own definitions and analysis, and the point was for you to try to find flaws or raise problems with it. You have done nothing of the sort, and have been evasive yourself. If you could pose some analysis of MY analysis that shows why it fails or brings up a contradiction, or anything of that sort, that could be a valid philosophical criticism. We are not debating policy or politics. Please do not belittle me. I ask only that anyone voting read my opponent's "iii" of the argument previous to this, to see her failure in the point of the debate, and her failure in etiquette. CONCLUSION I agree with my opponent. I am deeply disappointed. I wanted to discuss this philosophical system, but instead my opponent has brought up "contradictions" about points that I am not claiming, and reasserting misunderstandings on her part, for example, about logic being open to bias. I am forthcoming within this debate, and have stated my position on my opponent's definition. As in the previous section, the conclusion is another clear example of how my opponent doesn't understand this debate, and then holds it against me, and says that I am not following the rules. Until my opponent understands that, there can be no philosophical discussion. Resolution has not in the least bit been negated. Vote Pro. I will be contacting my opponent to hopefully clarify this misunderstanding.