There are Moral Facts

[Sculptor]

P1. Natural selection is amoral.
P2. The holocaust selected out 6 million jews.
C. The holocaust is amoral.

C. The holocaust is not natural.
Your argument cannot be valid and sound if it is not sufficent and necessary.

The holocaust was a cultural event. Nature did not come up with gas chambers or ZyklonB. Racism is a cultural concept and so is anti-semitism.
Confusing this with natural selection, or amorality betrays a deep ignorance.

You are missing some sort of premise to the effect that absolutely all human choices are fully reducible to practical expressions of natural selection.

False.
Natural Selection is not about choices; it is about consequences. Are you saying that the human race is better off without Jews?

Without that you have nothing to suggest that humans cannot create morality just as they can create art and science.

The creation of art, morality and science is neither necessary nor sufficient for survival, and thus has no bearing on natural selection. The appearance of these things could bode ill as well and bode well for us as a species.

But with it, you would also reduce art and science to to mere expressions of natural selection.

You are contradicting yourself, as that wold be what YOU are doing here.

You keep awarding yourself points for genius and incredible insight, they aren't deserved.

Insults shall not help your argument.
Are you really satisfied that the above is a valid syllogism?
If so demonstrate it!

[Sculptor]

P1 = C1: The holocaust is FUCKING DESPICABLE.

Fuck off and consult a dictionary and discover the difference between "Amoral" and "Immoral".

Natural Selection is what it is;amoral, neither despicable or otherwise.

[Skepdick]

The holocaust was a cultural event. Nature did not come up with gas chambers or ZyklonB. Racism is a cultural concept and so is anti-semitism.
Confusing this with natural selection, or amorality betrays a deep ignorance.

Insisting that humans are not part of nature betrays incurable stupidity.

[Skepdick]

Fuck off and consult a dictionary and discover the difference between "Amoral" and "Immoral".

Natural Selection is what it is;amoral, neither despicable or otherwise.

Imbecile.

P1. Natural selection is amoral. Neither despicable or otherwise
P2. The Holocaust naturally selected out 6 million jews.
C. The Holocaust is amoral. Neither despicable or otherwise

If you reject the conclusion you are going to have to reject SOMETHING.

Sylogistic rasoning perhaps. I don't know.

[Sculptor]

The holocaust was a cultural event. Nature did not come up with gas chambers or ZyklonB. Racism is a cultural concept and so is anti-semitism.
Confusing this with natural selection, or amorality betrays a deep ignorance.

Insisting that humans are not part of nature betrays incurable stupidity.

Insisting that the holocaust and wiping out several classes of humanity is natural betrays your idiocy.
The holocaust is not natural, it is not amoral. It was immoral.

[Skepdick]

Insisting that the holocaust and wiping out several classes of humanity is natural betrays your idiocy.

Retard.

I am not saying that which you insist I am saying, can you engage your half brain cell and stop strawmanning me.
I am not saying that which has you morally outraged.

Syllogistic reasoning CONCLUDES it.
Syllogistic reasoning is saying that which has you morally outraged.

P1. Natural selection is amoral. Neither despicable or otherwise
P2. The Holocaust naturally selected out 6 million jews.
C. The Holocaust is amoral. Neither despicable or otherwise

^^^ This is NOT my argument. This is AN argument.

It is a valid/sound argument ergo it is true.

Why are you morally outraged by truth?

[FlashDangerpants]

P1. Natural selection is amoral.
P2. The holocaust selected out 6 million jews.
C. The holocaust is amoral.

C. The holocaust is not natural.

Special pleading.

No, it's an equally valid conclusion to your childish syllogism. In a valid argument, as you have already written somewhere round here, if the premisses are true then the conclusion must be true. Your syllogism attempt has among is possible conclusions "The holocaust is not natural" and therefore does not have the properties of validity and soundness you claim for it. That's all there is to that.

There is nothing that isn't natural. Humans are part of nature.

Natural selection refers to an identifiable process. Morality refers to identifiable activities.
Just placing everything under the umbrella of 'natural' in this manner does nothing.

Either there is a useful reason to discriminate between man made things and natural things or there is not, suddenly deciding not to allow it just for this one argument's sake is foolishness. If you are of the opinion that the natural origins of man means that mathematics, computer science, automobile repair, false syyllogisms and wine tasting holidays are all every bit as natural as grass growing and fish simming, then that's a whole thing you need to prove if you can, rather than just smuggling.

Your argument cannot be valid and sound if it is not sufficent and necessary.

Dude. How many times must I correct you?

It's not MY argument. Syllogistic reasoning is your baby.

My argument (if I was to make one) would be much simpler:

P1 = C1: The holocaust is fucking despicable, immoral and heinous!

That's it. Done!

Well it's not my argument either. It seems nobody wants to own this slice of specious shit for some reason.
It's not syllgoistic reasoning, it's just three sentences arranged to look a little bit like an argument.

You are missing some sort of premise to the effect that absolutely all human choices are fully reducible to practical expressions of natural selection.

I am not missing any premises. What you are looking for is justification of your special pleading.

You are looking to exclude some human behavior/actions/consequences from nature.

Remember when I told you this....

Your dualist metaphysic and utter lack of self-awareness is the source of all of your bullshit.

Without that you have nothing to suggest that humans cannot create morality just as they can create art and science.

Sure, but synthetic morality has NOTHING to do with syllogisms.

Hence my point: syllogistic reasoning is at odds with moral reasoning.

Well I am a moral antirealist, and I am on record multiple times stating that morality is inconsistent and cannot be made consistent.
So what are you trying to prove here? I already know that morality is not going to be accurately described through syllogism, it's Vest Andpants who doesn't get that.

But with it, you would also reduce art and science to to mere expressions of natural selection.

I would reduce them to being different strategies for surviving selection.

Wow, that's bleak.

[Skepdick]

No, it's an equally valid conclusion to your childish syllogism. In a valid argument, as you have already written somewhere round here, if the premisses are true then the conclusion must be true. Your syllogism attempt has among is possible conclusions "The holocaust is not natural" and therefore does not have the properties of validity and soundness you claim for it. That's all there is to that

There is nothing that isn't natural. Humans are part of nature.

Natural selection refers to an identifiable process. Morality refers to identifiable activities.
Just placing everything under the umbrella of 'natural' in this manner does nothing.

Either there is a useful reason to discriminate between man made things and natural things or there is not, suddenly deciding not to allow it just for this one argument's sake is foolishness. If you are of the opinion that the natural origins of man means that mathematics, computer science, automobile repair, false syyllogisms and wine tasting holidays are all every bit as natural as grass growing and fish simming, then that's a whole thing you need to prove if you can, rather than just smuggling.

Your argument cannot be valid and sound if it is not sufficent and necessary.

Dude. How many times must I correct you?

It's not MY argument. Syllogistic reasoning is your baby.

My argument (if I was to make one) would be much simpler:

P1 = C1: The holocaust is fucking despicable, immoral and heinous!

That's it. Done!

Well it's not my argument either. It seems nobody wants to own this slice of specious shit for some reason.
It's not syllgoistic reasoning, it's just three sentences arranged to look a little bit like an argument.

You are missing some sort of premise to the effect that absolutely all human choices are fully reducible to practical expressions of natural selection.

I am not missing any premises. What you are looking for is justification of your special pleading.

You are looking to exclude some human behavior/actions/consequences from nature.

Remember when I told you this....

Your dualist metaphysic and utter lack of self-awareness is the source of all of your bullshit.

Without that you have nothing to suggest that humans cannot create morality just as they can create art and science.

Sure, but synthetic morality has NOTHING to do with syllogisms.

Hence my point: syllogistic reasoning is at odds with moral reasoning.

Well I am a moral antirealist, and I am on record multiple times stating that morality is inconsistent and cannot be made consistent.
So what are you trying to prove here? I already know that morality is not going to be accurately described through syllogism, it's Vest Andpants who doesn't get that.

But with it, you would also reduce art and science to to mere expressions of natural selection.

I would reduce them to being different strategies for surviving selection.

Wow, that's bleak.

Kiddie fucker. Until you learn to practice the principle of charity I actually have no interest in engaging you further.

I have you by the syllogistic balls, and so all you are attempting now is a character assassination exercise.

So if you know that morality is inconsistent. And you know that syllogisms are consistent, why are you wasting other people's time trying to frame moral discussion into a syllogistic framework?

Almost as if you are trying to set people up for failure.

I already know that morality is not going to be accurately described through syllogism, it's Vest Andpants who doesn't get that.

Have you actually noticed that he hasn't been doing that for a few months now? Have you noticed that he's switched gears to inductive mode of reasoning?

It's only you who thinks he's in a sylogistic framework. That's like a - strawman or something.

[FlashDangerpants]

Kiddie fucker. Until you learn to practice the principle of charity I actually have no interest in engaging you further.

Please live up to that promise. I have found you increasingly boring recently.

I have you by the syllogistic balls, and so all you are attempting now is a character assassination exercise.

I explained well enough what your syllogistic failing was. Sculpor explained it too, you have no excuse for not getting it.

So if you know that morality is inconsistent. And you know that syllogisms are consistent, why are you wasting other people's time trying to frame the into a consistent framework?

I am literally doing the absolute opposite. I have been clear and consistent for years in my claims that morality cannot be a matter of consistent fact. I have described it outright as a matter more of fashion than anything else, with persuasion being a matter of pursuing internal consistency, not external fact.

Almost as if you are trying to set people up for failure.

No. Here are a selection of my previous statements on this matter....

A signature feature of opinion on the other hand is that people need persuading. The signature of custom, etiquette and fashion is that people tend to go with what they have seen others do. It sure seems like morality lies in one of those latter categories to me.


So rather than describe morality as """"MERE"""" opinion, I would typically label it a sort of fashion. Over time, relatively short times in the grand scheme of things, we are frequently persuaded as a group that things which were entirely wrong are now totally ok (women having opinions about stuff, men sucking dick etc), while other activities move in the other direction.

Moral skepticism only requires that our moral language is founded on human behaviours and beliefs, not that it useless, worthless OR COMPLETELY RANDOM OR ARBITRARY. If our most basic moral assumptions are a matter of fashion, persuasion, agreement and so on, rather than something you can look to the sky, or under a rock to find out, then we are done.

[Skepdick]

I explained well enough what your syllogistic failing was. Sculpor explained it too, you have no excuse for not getting it.

How is it that both of you explained it incorrectly?

[Skepdick]

I am literally doing the absolute opposite. I have been clear and consistent for years in my claims that morality cannot be a matter of consistent fact. I have described it outright as a matter more of fashion than anything else, with persuasion being a matter of pursuing internal consistency, not external fact.

What perverted form of "consistency" do you have in mind if you keep insisting for "philosophical arguments" when doing moral persuasion?

[FlashDangerpants]

Kiddie fucker. Until you learn to practice the principle of charity I actually have no interest in engaging you further.

Even I normally last longer than that when I do that move, and I'm a complete bastard.

[FlashDangerpants]

I am literally doing the absolute opposite. I have been clear and consistent for years in my claims that morality cannot be a matter of consistent fact. I have described it outright as a matter more of fashion than anything else, with persuasion being a matter of pursuing internal consistency, not external fact.

What perverted form of "consistency" do you have in mind if you keep insisting for "philosophical arguments" when doing moral persuasion?

Well for that you would need to have some sort of assumed principle about agreeing with yourself. For the man who thinks he is too clever for that I guess none of this would be persuasive.

Although how that guy would think his insistence that any specific thing was evil would make any difference seeing as he can decide it's not evil later on without inconsistency, well, who knows what that imaginary edgelord thinks, and who cares?

[Skepdick]

Well for that you would need to have some sort of assumed principle about agreeing with yourself.

Yes. The "some sort of principle about agreeing with yourself" is exactly that thing you call "internal consistency".

You insisted on it. Now you aren't insisting on it.

For the man who thinks he is too clever for that I guess none of this would be persuasive.

If persuasion requires consistency - you aren't very persuasive.

[FlashDangerpants]

Well for that you would need to have some sort of assumed principle about agreeing with yourself.

Yes. The "some sort of principle about agreeing with yourself" is exactly that thing you call "internal consistency".

You insisted on it. Now you aren't insisting on it.

That would definitely be a problem if I were talking about moral fact as some sort of thing. Perhaps this gives us some sort of clue as to why I never have.

When you start thinking in descriptive terms instead of just making demands, you might note that it is common for beliefs to be held inconsistently. It is, perhaps lamentably, common for people to obstinately hold inconsistent beliefs even after their attention is drawn to their internal inconsistency. Now you might, if you are good at this sort of thing, note that this does not make them not beliefs anymore, you know, in the way that inconsistent facts are not described as facts anymore?

At this point perhaps you might think back to your own previous statements about optimisiation for eventual consistency and revealed preference.