There are Moral Facts

[FlashDangerpants]

So you are a nihilist after all that?

So you really can't tell the difference between you and me, eh?

"Natural selection is a morally neutral process." is your utterance, not mine.
I am just giving you the implication of the above belief.

Your tedious shark jumping ramblings make no difference, Natural selection is a morally neutral process.
If you want to wildly overinfer from that trivial observation to complete nihilism that's your problem.
Just make your mind up so I don't have to waste too much effort on your edgelordery.

[Skepdick]

Natural selection is a morally neutral process.

Therefore your choices are morally neutral.
Therefore you (not me) are a nihilist.

I heard you the first time.

If you want to wildly overinfer from that trivial observation to complete nihilism that's your problem.

It's a deductive inference. Observation has nothing to do with it.

And it's not really "my" problem, as much as it is Philosophy's problem, seeming as the argument is valid AND sound, it would be rather irrational for you to reject it.

Your tedious shark jumping ramblings make no difference.

OUGHT they make a difference? That's funny! I thought you don't believe in moral facts.

[FlashDangerpants]

If you want to wildly overinfer from that trivial observation to complete nihilism that's your problem.

It's a deductive inference. Observation has nothing to do with it.

And it's not really "my" problem, as much as it is Philosophy's problem, seeming as the argument is valid AND sound, it would be rather irrational for you to reject it.

Valid and sound? Oh my.
So let's work out what you think is the valid and sound argument here.
It seems to be that you accept my initial premise that Natural Seclection is a morally neutral process. And from there you provide a second premise that all human behaviours are expressions of evolutionary natural selection and proceed from that to ... therefore our entire moral vocabulary is devoid of significance. Is this an unfair description of your claim?
That hot mess meets your standards for valid and sound deductive argument, all fully entailed and true?


I may as well add a subsidiary conclusion that there are therefore no words with which to meaningfully express let alone discuss any moral fact.

[Skepdick]

It seems to be that you accept my initial premise that Natural Seclection is a morally neutral process.

I don't accept your premise but that's fucking moot!

You accept your own premise, surely? Otherwise you wouldn't have said "Natural Seclection is a morally neutral process.".

And from there you provide a second premise that all human behaviours are expressions of evolutionary natural selection and proceed from that to ...

It's not a second premise. It's a conclusion which follows directly from YOUR premise.

If you insist that humans are not part nature and that the choices we make are not natural then I'll call you out for special pleading and I can conclude (despite your objections) that you are irrational.

But where is the fun in that?

therefore our entire moral vocabulary is devoid of significance.

So let me get this straight: your premise necessitates that you are nihilist but you have a moral vocabulary. What's up with that?

Of course, I haven't forgotten that special pleading is your way out of this mess. Cash it out any time you feel cornered by your own beliefs!

Is this an unfair description of your claim?

Very much so! Because it's not my fucking claim - it's the deductive implication of YOUR claim.

That hot mess meets your standards for valid and sound deductive argument, all fully entailed and true?

Dude. YOUR standards are not MY standards.

You are a philosopher. You insist on syllogisms. It's your song&dance.

Are you now rejecting your own standards? Why? Because you don't like the conclusion/implication or you do you have some rationalisation/justification in your back pocket that I need to hear?

I may as well add a subsidiary conclusion that there are therefore no words with which to meaningfully express let alone discuss any moral fact.

Uhhhh. Isn't that my EXACT point! YOU are the one who insists that there are no such things as "moral facts" - and deductively it follows that your choices are amoral. So what is "it" that you want to express/discuss exactly?

Apparently you have a vocabulary to speak about nothing.

That's pretty fucking hilarious.

[FlashDangerpants]

It seems to be that you accept my initial premise that Natural Seclection is a morally neutral process.

I don't accept your premise but that's fucking moot!

You don't understand what valid and sound means then.

[Skepdick]

You don't understand what valid and sound means then.

I understand very well what it means.

You insist that the premises are true.
The conclusions follow from the premises.
Then argument is sound and valid.

Which is why I am showing you how you have railroaded yourself to nihilism.

Of course, I also expect you to blame me doing that to you. Blaming other people for "railroading" you is your usual crutch.

[FlashDangerpants]

You don't understand what valid and sound means then.

I understand very well what it means.

You insist that the premises are true.
The conclusions follow from the premises.
Then argument is sound and valid.

Which is why I am showing you how you have railroaded yourself to nihilism.

Of course, I also expect you to blame me doing that to you. Blaming other people for "railroading" you is your usual crutch.

That is not what valid and sound means. And your contrived explanation is stupid either way because most of the premisses involved aren't even mine, I haven't asserted any such thing, and I absolutely do no insist on the truth of such meangingless shit. The entailment you claim is nonsense. Fuck off.

None of this is worth further investigation. You are just blathering be the centre of attention.

[Skepdick]

That is not what valid and sound means.

You must think I am very stupid if you believe the semantic U-turn is going to work on me.

In logic, more precisely in deductive reasoning, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false

In logic, more precisely in deductive reasoning, an argument is sound if it is both valid in form and its premises are true.

And your contrived explanation is stupid either way because most of the premisses involved aren't even mine

OK, cupcake. Is just that there is only one premise - your premise.

Are you now saying you didn't say this?

Instead you are leaving that to natural selection, which is a morally neutral process

Natural selection is a morally neutral process.

There must be something broken with my screen then? it has your name on it.

I haven't asserted any such thing, and I absolutely do no insist on the truth of such meangingless shit.

What does assertion have to do with anything?

Either "human selection is amoral" follows from the premise "natural selection is amoral" or it doesn't.

Are you insisting that human selection is not a subset of natural selection?

You are welcome to cash in your "special pleading" card right about now.

The entailment you claim is nonsense. Fuck off.

Jackpot! *ching*ching*ching*

SPECIAL PLEADING!!!

Now for the backpocket justification as to why human selection is not natural...

None of this is worth further investigation. You are just blathering be the centre of attention.

Oh, but this ALL about you. You are the star in this show.

Why are you shying away from the spotlight now?

[FlashDangerpants]

That is not what valid and sound means.

You must think I am very stupid if you believe the semantic U-turn is going to work on me.

In logic, more precisely in deductive reasoning, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false

In logic, more precisely in deductive reasoning, an argument is sound if it is both valid in form and its premises are true.

Now you have some problem understanding what "true" means?

Actually fuck it. You already reckon only you know what a question is, you probably do think that asserting something as true when you don't agree with it is sane. This is just stupid.

[Skepdick]

Now you have some problem understanding what "true" means?

You really are working overtime trying to insist I am making you say things....
According to YOU this premise is true "Natural selection is amoral".

YOU know what "true" means. Do you not?
That is why YOU made the TRUE claim "Natural selection is amoral"

Are you saying that "Natural selection is amoral" is NOT true?

Are you trying to do a U-turn on that too now?

Actually fuck it. You already reckon only you know what a question is, you probably do think that asserting something as true when you don't agree with it is sane. This is just stupid.

I am not asserting that "Natural selection is amoral" is true.

YOU ARE ASSERTING IT.

You sound like a fucking nutjob. I asked you right in the beginning whether you can tell the difference between ME and YOU.

[Atla]

As I had stated above, you are very ignorant and oblivious to what is morality is about despite my explanation.

When did I ever state specifically killing and raping are proper behavior?
Note the moral maxim I proposed,
"No human ought to kill another human" period!
It is the same imperative ought for raping and other evil acts.

It's your argument. Principles like "thou shalt not kill" are nice, unless they clash with facts from evolutionary psychology. Often, killing, raping and genocide get the job done the best (in which case, 'thou shalt not kill' becomes the evil act).

By killing and raping etc. you ensure the continuity of your genes and the continuity of your tribe, you deal with outside threats, you produce superior and numerous offspring. Totally the morally-super-duper-proper thing to do. It's all science, backed by empirical facts, so it's objective.

In fact, let the above be known as the "Veritas paradigm". We'll help spread the word, you'll become famous.

[Skepdick]

By killing and raping etc. you ensure the continuity of your genes and the continuity of your tribe, you deal with outside threats, you produce superior and numerous offspring. Totally the morally-super-duper-proper thing to do. It's all science, backed by empirical facts, so it's objective.

So explain to us how that works in 2020 exactly.

You KILL the women and then you rape them, or you kill them after they have your offspring 9 months later?
Do you also kidnap them for 2 months and take away their contraceptives?

Because your swimmers aren't going to do shit...And then they can abort the baby...So you really have to kidnap them for 11 months.

Your plan is far more suited to an era bygone.

[FlashDangerpants]

As I had stated above, you are very ignorant and oblivious to what is morality is about despite my explanation.

When did I ever state specifically killing and raping are proper behavior?
Note the moral maxim I proposed,
"No human ought to kill another human" period!
It is the same imperative ought for raping and other evil acts.

It's your argument. Principles like "thou shalt not kill" are nice, unless they clash with facts from evolutionary psychology. Often, killing, raping and genocide get the job done the best (in which case, 'thou shalt not kill' becomes the evil act).

By killing and raping etc. you ensure the continuity of your genes and the continuity of your tribe, you deal with outside threats, you produce superior and numerous offspring. Totally the morally-super-duper-proper thing to do. It's all science, backed by empirical facts, so it's objective.

In fact, let the above be known as the "Veritas paradigm". We'll help spread the word, you'll become famous.

Skepdik has an amended version, it's only moral to rape them if they are too young to be on birth control.

Next week on the Veritas and Skep files: Are we morally obliged to abandon cancerous middle-aged wives and replace them with younger and more fertile ladies? All this and more as we investigate the strange ways that DNA and evolution give us moral fact.

[Skepdick]

Skepdik has an amended version, it's only moral to rape them if they are too young to be on birth control.

Next week on the Veritas and Skep files: Are we morally obliged to abandon cancerous middle-aged wives and replace them with younger and more fertile ladies? All this and more as we investigate the strange ways that DNA and evolution give us moral fact.

So we literally just established that you have a tendency for projecting your views onto me, and now you are trying to pawn off your child rape fantasies as mine?

It's a cute attempt at drawing attention away from yourself while you extract your foot from your mouth, but I think you are taking your nihilism a little too far.

So back on topic, sunshine! I am greatly entertained by watching you squirm in your own stupid.

FlashDangerdork says: Natural selection is amoral.
Skepdick points out: Deductively, it follows that human choice is amoral too. Your premise makes you are a nihilist.
FlashDangerdork says: <something utterly fucking irrelevant while trying to climb back on the moral high horse he just murdered>

[FlashDangerpants]

Skepdik has an amended version, it's only moral to rape them if they are too young to be on birth control.

Next week on the Veritas and Skep files: Are we morally obliged to abandon cancerous middle-aged wives and replace them with younger and more fertile ladies? All this and more as we investigate the strange ways that DNA and evolution give us moral fact.

So we literally just established that you have a tendency for projecting your views onto me, and now you are trying to pawn off your child rape fantasies as mine?

It's a cute attempt at drawing attention away from yourself while you extract your foot from your mouth, but I think you are taking your nihilism a little too far.

So back on topic, sunshine! I am greatly entertained by watching you squirm in your own stupid.

FlashDangerdork says: Natural selection is amoral.
Skepdick points out: Deductively, it follows that human choice is amoral too. Your premise makes you are a nihilist.
FlashDangerdork says: <something utterly fucking irrelevant while trying to climb back on the moral high horse he just murdered>

That does not deductively follow at all. Not without whatever enormous quantity of hidden assumptions you are smuggling.
And presumably you aren't actually claiming that natural selection seeks moral outcomes anyway so you are only doing any of this bullshit to be a troll.