Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Atla]

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.

Did you receive so little attention lately that you are forced to start threads now?

[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.

Did you receive so little attention lately that you are forced to start threads now?

Naah, bro. I got way too much positive attention today (going to be a daddy again), so I seek some atheistic/naturalistic outrage for balance...

[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.

Definitions are secondary to possibility/existence.

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

I haven't seen any of the subjectivists say morality is impossible or morality doesn't exist. To a man they say morality is opinion. They reject moral realism, yes. They don't reject morality, as they define it.

[Atla]

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.

Did you receive so little attention lately that you are forced to start threads now?

Naah, bro. I got way too much positive attention today (going to be a daddy again), so I seek some atheistic/naturalistic outrage for balance...

You mean that in your imagination, there are women who actually talk to you and more?

[Skepdick]

I haven't seen any of the subjectivists say morality is impossible or morality doesn't exist.

Right! Which is why they can't reject P2 on any rational/logical grounds.

To a man they say morality is opinion. They reject moral realism, yes. They don't reject morality, as they define it.

Right! Which is they can't reject P1 on any rational/logical grounds.

Which is why all the rejection on irrational/illogical/butt-hurt grounds was predictable.

[Skepdick]

You mean that in your imagination, there are women who actually talk to you and more?

If women (plural) did more than talk to me my wife wouldn't be my wife for long...

[Atla]

You mean that in your imagination, there are women who actually talk to you and more?

If women (plural) did more than talk to me my wife wouldn't be my wife for long...

Ah yes, wife

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

I've seen Skepdick argue that humans are a natural object and therefore there is no such thing as an artificial human product. Now I see him arguing that morals can't be derived from nature, and following up that moral fictionalism is compatible with his argument that supposedly will piss off Atheists. None of that adds up to a coherent anything.

'Derived' can mean too many things. A cake can be derived from eggs flour heat and sugar. In one of his other arguments Skepdick has argued that the conclusion murder is wrong can be derived from the primary premise that murder is wrong and the attendant premise that murder is wrong. I asked at the top of the thread if invention and hallucination can count as deriving, no answer was received.

I have seen Skepdick complain at length that it's unfair to characterise objectivity in the way you and I normally would and it strikes me as odd to suppose he is arguing against objective morality on the basis of yours and my understanding when in fact he usually argues for it.

So it follows that a genetic predisposition towards a preference for something can 'derive a moral' if the being with that predisposition believes (or halucinates) it into being. By By Skepdick's usual standards it doesn't matter if this is moral is true or not, it doesn't need to overcome any objection because it is compatible with oppositional moral factoids even those which describe it as actually false.

So under a Skepdickian paradigm - in which the Mad Hatter's Tea Party is roughly equivalent to the Critique of Pure Reason - his P1 can be discovered to be false if you like, or true if you are in the mood. His P2 is baseless assertion by any standard at all though. And the conclusion doesn't matter because he can just use any premise he likes as both premise and conclusions so what's the point in worrying about it?




Under any classical logic paradigm, the arument can be dismissed more quickly because P1 is question begging (even if I happen to agree with it), P2 is baseless assertion, and there is no inference from the premises tot he conclusion because they are too vague. If there is no inferential step at the end, it is not an argument.

[Skepdick]

I've seen Skepdick argue that humans are a natural object and therefore there is no such thing as an artificial human product. Now I see him arguing that morals can't be derived from nature

Because you are desperately attempting to construct an ad hominem.

What I "actually believe" is none of your business.

Look at the argument.

Under any classical logic paradigm, the arument can be dismissed more quickly because P1 is question begging (even if I happen to agree with it)

That's absolutely not true. Under any classical logical paradigm all premises are arrived by induction.

If my P1 is question-begging then "All men are mortal" is also question-begging.

P2 is baseless assertion

Which part of "we have and continuously develop new morals" is baseless for you?

[FlashDangerpants]

I've seen Skepdick argue that humans are a natural object and therefore there is no such thing as an artificial human product. Now I see him arguing that morals can't be derived from nature

Because you are desperately attempting to construct an ad hominem.

What I "actually believe" is none of your business.

Look at the argument.

Why are you taking this to heart? You never thought that argument in the OP was any good.

[FlashDangerpants]

If my P1 is question-begging then "All men are mortal" is also question-begging.

And?

[Skepdick]

I've seen Skepdick argue that humans are a natural object and therefore there is no such thing as an artificial human product. Now I see him arguing that morals can't be derived from nature

Because you are desperately attempting to construct an ad hominem.

What I "actually believe" is none of your business.

Look at the argument.

Why are you taking this to heart? You never thought that argument in the OP was any good.

I have no feelings about it either way, darling.

But if you are going to pretend that you give a shit about logic, soundness and validity - then show me.

[Skepdick]

If my P1 is question-begging then "All men are mortal" is also question-begging.

And?

And what?

In classical logic you have excluded middle.

If you reject that all men are mortal then you accept that some men are immortal. Evidence please!

If you reject that X is impossible, then you accept that X is possible. Evidence please!

[FlashDangerpants]

If my P1 is question-begging then "All men are mortal" is also question-begging.

And?

And what?

In classical logic you have excluded middle.

If you reject that all men are mortal then you accept that some men are immortal.

If all men are mortal
And if Socrates is a man
Then Socrates is mortal.


As of yet, your mortality is unproven, putative, subject to dispute. You are welcome to put it to empirical test.

[Skepdick]

And?

And what?

In classical logic you have excluded middle.

If you reject that all men are mortal then you accept that some men are immortal.

If all men are mortal
And if Socrates is a man
Then Socrates is mortal.


As of yet, your mortality is unproven, putative, subject to dispute. You are welcome to put it to empirical test.

So in a classical setting you are believe that I am immortal, do you?