ruby sparks said:
What do you mean 'no'? You asked me where the fallacy was. Now a fallacy is not the point?
I was not claiming the argument you offered was a fallacy. What I claimed and argued - among other things - is that it is not proper to attack morality on grounds that you refuse to apply to color or illness or science even though they are in that particular regard not at all different from morality.
ruby sparks said:
Are you, or are you not, going to admit that there is an inherent problem with getting a moral conclusion from nonmoral premises, namely that it is not valid and a fallacy, a formal fallacy in fact. You recently claimed that logic was very important in these matters, and now it has conveniently gone out the window.
This continued evasion is getting extremely boring.
Continued evasion? On your part you mean? By failing to actually address the points and repeating yours? I have repeatedly explained my position, but again:
1. There are arguments in which the premises are arguably non-moral and warranted, the conclusion is moral, but are valid. Example:
P1: Ordinary human faculties reckon that it is immoral for a human being to rape another just for fun.
P2: If ordinary human faculties reckon that A, then very probably A.
C: Very probably, it is immoral for a human being to rape another just for fun.
If that does not count as non-moral premises, fine then, it depends on what you count as such.
2. Moral assessments can also be made immediately and intuitively, without any kind of reasoning, and again no fallacy.
3.
If the usual way in which we make moral assessments using nonmoral information does not contain any implicit premises as the argument above,
then it is a fallacy, but
if that is the case, then this fallacy is not something that happens with morality in particular, but with color, illness, science,
and it is pretty much everywhere, inevitably even. So,
if moral statements (and then, all of these other statements) are indeed fallacious,
then clearly this is a sort of fallacy that it is not important to avoid, simply because it is not even possible to avoid it and learning almost anything about the world. Rather, this would be a fallacy that one makes all the time, and which is rational to make all the time - moreover, it would be irrational to fail to make it.
Now, I do think in general logic is important, and in particular, so is to avoid fallacies. But
if it turns out that this particular kind of assessment is a fallacy, then clearly it is not always the case important to avoid fallacies, but rather, it is important to incur this particular fallacy all the time. And this is so even if one is a moral error theorist and rejects morality - this particular fallacy, if it is a fallacy at all, again is necessary to learn information about the world, perhaps for all of it or all of it except for immediate perceptions.