But I wouldn't concede that morality is a human invention like the computer. That would imply that it's accidental and not grounded in anything fundamental to our species or nature's laws.
Do you believe that choosing to feed your kids, or choosing to not kill someone are simply created constructs like the computer or the airplane?
Also, I think these two statements can be true at the same time: (1) The Moral Law is real and exists outside of our subjective experience and historical cultural evolution and (2) concepts like Karma are without evidence.
The actions exist obviously.
My point is that in the absence of consciousness there is no positive or negative value ascribed to them.
Let's take the example of feeding your children, but use the opposite extreme. What you see plenty of in nature is a mother eating her children. Sometimes for no reason at all (Octopus, Guppies, rodents).
Are there certain species that are fundamentally immoral? Maybe so, from our perspective. But without our perspective no value is assigned. It is just another thing animals do without any moral weight.
You missed the point. Morality is a human invention, much like computers are (albeit philosophical, not physical in nature).
Like computers, it didn't exist before consciousness evolved.
Talking about morality as a universal truth, and there being some invisible scales of justice which will eventually even out is thusly irrational.