Peter Holmes claimed:
1 A non-moral premise or premises can't entail a moral conclusion, because a deductive conclusion can't contain information not present in the premise or premises of an argument. If it does, then the argument is a non sequitur fallacy.
If, as God-believers claim, human nature is and always has been a thing originated by God, then a human action that is not consistent with human nature is morally wrong.
Darwin's theory of natural selection put the theory of
enduring human nature into the category of dead paradigms; that was why Darwin's theory evoked such opposition. Most educated people now believe there is no such thing as enduring human nature, except insofar as laws of engineering and physics disallow departure from endoskeleton and lateral symmetry.
The absence of any enduring human nature implies the absence of enduring moral
laws. However evolutionary biology shows that human cranial development implies there will be moral
law as is consistent with very social animals who are also intelligent.
My conclusion shows my non-moral premises entail a non-moral conclusion as to nature of morality: the human is a moral animal.
Particular moral codes such as the post Axial Age codes , all of them well researched and known , originate in means of subsistence i.e. climate, weather, seasons, terrain, and pestilence.These latter are non-moral facts and they directly caused
specific and particular moral codes.