FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 5:17 pm
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.".
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 5:17 pm
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?
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 5:17 pm
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!
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 5:17 pm
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.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 5:17 pm
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?
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 5:17 pm
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.