Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Sculptor]

P1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.
P2. It's not impossible to derrive morals.
C. A source of morality exists that it's NOT natural.

Let the atheist/naturalist apologetics begin.

Try harder!

[Skepdick]

P1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.
P2. It's not impossible to derrive morals.
C. A source of morality exists that it's NOT natural.

Let the atheist/naturalist apologetics begin.

Try harder!

How much harder than a sound and valid argument?

Let us know when you are done moving the goal posts.

[Will Bouwman]

What justification justified the impossibility to you?

You are the one who said

P1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.

[FlashDangerpants]

I can't use the argument you present to demonstrate any error by anybody, and it can't be used against me either. It's too spurious to to be valid, too empty to be sound.

It really only approximates to an argument at all by virtue of grammatical appearance.

Sorry. I don't understand what you mean by "error" or "spurious" ?

What is the "error" in the argument? Is the argument invalid; or unsound?

I thought those are the only two options. it sounds like you are inventing new ways to disagree with logic, because I am not aware of "spuriousness" being a logical quality.

It's not even wrong. It's not an argument, it is just three largely meaningless sentences arranged to look a bit like one.

[Skepdick]

What justification justified the impossibility to you?

You are the one who said

P1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.

I know what I said. What confused you about my premise?

"Impossible" simply means NOT possible. And I say that it's NOT possible because I haven't seen anybody do it.

If anybody has done it; or if anybody can do it - then obviously that would be evidence for the possibility, but until then... it's NOT possible.

[Skepdick]

It's not even wrong.

That's just a lie. Both premises are scientific/empirical.

P1 is observable/testable and falsifiable - provide evidence for possibility to falsify it.
P2 is observable/testable and falsifiable - to falsify it simply reject the possibility; or existence of morality.

It's not an argument, it is just three largely meaningless sentences arranged to look a bit like one.

Oh. OK. Then this is not a rejection of my argument. It's just a meaningless sentence arrargned to look a bit like a rejection.

[Sculptor]

Morals are extrasomatic means by which natural tendancies are controlled by society/culture.

We are all born with natural tendancies, like all animals. In the most simple formulation the tendancies that are relevant to moral considerations are those tendancies which govern or at least suggest the way animals treat their fellows, against they way they might treat an threat or prey.
Dogs co-operate in packs, bird flock together, as to sheep and most other grazing species. On the other hand lions and Hyeneas also co-operate to pray upon such species, wheras TIgers are more likely, in common with the domestic cat to be solitary.
IN this way nature has provided a wide range of strategies.
Humans are co-operative species. And in most people there is a tendancy to join with others for mutual aid. But inheritability being what it is, there is also a minority which is capable of exploiting that co-operation; psychopathy. Many CEOs and political leaders have this tendancy.
HUman variation is a bugger

Humans use langague to evolve and communicate such tendancies. Morals are codes of conduct developed and modifed continually through culture.
Morals are, then, so obviously relative to situations , history, culture, and social position.

As you can see, as a naturalist. I have not seen the need to mention god here at any point.

So, whilst I would love to be pissed off. I'll not hold my breath just yet.

[Skepdick]

Morals are extrasomatic means by which natural tendancies are controlled by society/culture.

We are all born with natural tendancies, like all animals. In the most simple formulation the tendancies that are relevant to moral considerations are those tendancies which govern or at least suggest the way animals treat their fellows, against they way they might treat an threat or prey.
Dogs co-operate in packs, bird flock together, as to sheep and most other grazing species. On the other hand lions and Hyeneas also co-operate to pray upon such species, wheras TIgers are more likely, in common with the domestic cat to be solitary.
IN this way nature has provided a wide range of strategies.
Humans are co-operative species. And in most people there is a tendancy to join with others for mutual aid. But inheritability being what it is, there is also a minority which is capable of exploiting that co-operation; psychopathy. Many CEOs and political leaders have this tendancy.
HUman variation is a bugger

Humans use langague to evolve and communicate such tendancies. Morals are codes of conduct developed and modifed continually through culture.
Morals are, then, so obviously relative to situations , history, culture, and social position.

As you can see, as a naturalist. I have not seen the need to mention god here at any point.

So, whilst I would love to be pissed off. I'll not hold my breath just yet.

Persuasive definition fallacy

natural /ˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/ adjective 1. existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

If morals are "extrasomatic" then where did they come from? If humans played any part in creating those extrasomatic control mechanisms they are not natural.

You are stretching the definition of "natural" to include humans and humankind, but if the definition is used in the broadest sense possible the word "natural" simply loses its meaning. If everything is natural then what's "unnatural"? What's "supernatural"?

If everything is natural, and nothing is non-natural then the natural/unnatural distinction simply evaporates.

[Iwannaplato]

It's not even wrong. It's not an argument, it is just three largely meaningless sentences arranged to look a bit like one.

It looks to me a like a reasonable argument against certain types of claims to objective morality. Sometimes these are implicit. IOW I don't think the OP should make all atheists or naturalists are somehow cornered by the OP. I think 'derived' and its synonyms are not necessarily how they arrive at their morality or think of the way the come to want morals to be. IOW they don't believe in objective morals. But if they do think they can make figure out objective morals or implicitly they are doing this in the way they judge and interaction, they may well be caught by the argument.

People often balk at relying on (what amounts to) 'I don't like that' or 'we don't like that' when they react to other people's behavior, after being pressed about their moral judgments of someone else or someone else's behavior.

[Skepdick]

It's not even wrong. It's not an argument, it is just three largely meaningless sentences arranged to look a bit like one.

It looks to me a like a reasonable argument against certain types of claims to objective morality. Sometimes these are implicit. IOW I don't think the OP should make all atheists or naturalists are somehow cornered by the OP. I think 'derived' and its synonyms are not necessarily how they arrive at their morality or think of the way the come to want morals to be. IOW they don't believe in objective morals. But if they do think they can make figure out objective morals or implicitly they are doing this in the way they judge and interaction, they may well be caught by the argument.

The objective/subjective distinction seems to map almost perfectly onto the natural/non-natural distinction.

To say that morals are subjective is to say that they are NOT natural.

[Impenitent]

Twilight of the idols

Maxims and Arrows

31. When stepped on, a worm doubles up. That is clever. In that way he lessens the probability of being stepped on again. In the language of morality: humility.

Nietzsche

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

The objective/subjective distinction seems to map almost perfectly to natural/non-natural distinction.

You can change "derrived" with "obtained" or "inferred". The word really doesn't matter. There's some mechanism for answering moral questions, and that mechanism isn NOT natural as per the standard English meaning of "natural".

I see those as synonyms, in this context at least. All three of those words imply that they are out there and the naturalist found them there directly or indirectly.

I think naturalists could think in terms of creating, making up, coming to agreement on what they want the morals of a society to be. If they really hold to this; I don't think the OP argument has to be a trap for them. Of course, I think very few people can actually manage to not think of their morals as objective in some way.

[Skepdick]

I think naturalists could think in terms of creating, making up, coming to agreement on what they want the morals of a society to be. If they really hold to this; I don't think the OP argument has to be a trap for them. Of course, I think very few people can actually manage to not think of their morals as objective in some way.

That would be naturalism under the persuasive definition fallacy of what most people consider to be "natural".

If it's contingent upon humans - it's not natural. That's how the word "natural" is understood in English.

We can re-define it if anybody thinks the current definition is a problem, but the natural/unnatural distinction (as it exists in the minds of humans in 2023) is standing in the way of naturalism.

[henry quirk]

The impasse is the same as always: the definitions of moral, morality, etc. I've yet to see any offered by anyone (including me) everyone agrees to. All definitions are skewed to favor morality is just opinion or morality is factual.

[Skepdick]

The impasse is the same as always: the definitions of moral, morality, etc. I've yet to see any offered by anyone (including me) everyone agrees to. All definitions are skewed to favor morality is just opinion or morality is factual.

Definitions are secondary to possibility/existence.

If you don't even believe that morality is possible; or that it exists as a worldly phenomenon there is nothing to define.