In Defense of a Non-Natural Moral Order

[John 6IX Breezy]

I'd be happy to.  There are a number of components to this so to know where to start, can I ask how much you already know about information theory / information governance best practices?

If you already know some of that I can take some short cuts; if not, this diagram might be a good starting point as an explanation:

From COBIT5 (2012), Culture is:
"Organisational Ethics determine the values by which the society (or enterprise) want to live (its code).
Individual Ethics are determined by each person’s personal values and are dependent to some extent on external factors not always under the society's control.
Individual Behaviours which collectively determine the culture of the group/society are dependent upon both organisational and individual ethics."

Thus, culture acts as both an enabler and/or a constraint on both the developing and developed (maturing and mature) individual depending on how you look at it.

The parts that relates to the immune system are the green arrows - events and alerts.  The idea being that individuals develop a baseline of 'how things should be' and when certain events happen a set of processes are triggered that generate alerts.  Some of these alerts such as 'hunger' (a capacity-related event) or 'virus attack' (a security-related event) may not register consciously and are dealt with automatically via the immune system  (event>incident>workaround>known error>standard change) and some require cognition (event>incident>workaround>new problem>new change).

A subset of these events/alerts are categorised by humans as 'moral events'.  Thus we differentiate between a preference, a social faux pas and a breach of an ethical standard.  

The latter would have grown from the fact that we are a social species where alienation from the group could mean death.  Notably, this implies that there would be no morality without mortality.

Perhaps it could be argued, therefore, that morality is the 'social immune system' at work.

Thus we can safely claim that even though existential nihilism is supported by physics, chemistry and biology, moral nihilism is not... there is an evolved difference between the preference / choice between chocolate or vanilla ice-cream and the preference / choice to kill someone or not. It's not "just your opinion, man."

Or, putting it another way, if female genital mutilation / circumcision or slavery are accepted as cultural norms there won't be a corresponding event that would trigger a moral-alert.

I can go deeper into the processes involved if that would help (the Event process, the Incident process, the Problem process and the Change process) but I find that I often lose people if I do that.

Rather than going deeper I think its more useful if you go broader and state the main point you are trying to convey. The different components and their interactions make sense, for the most part, but I'm not sure I understand what its trying to tell me. Apart from that, two things that could be clarified are the distinction between ethics and morality (I typically use them interchangeably, or at most use morality for individuals and ethics for organizations; the diagram seems to have a specific definition for them) and what the culture/high culture distinction is?

I haven't learned about information theory. But for the time being, I'm mostly struggling to understand in what context the information you're giving me fits in, or what function it has.