Moral Skepticism

莫丽蜜: "First, be humane to Inuka.
Next, be humane to humans.

Ed Nolan: On instagram some retarded Sinkies are insisting that polar bears and dogs should be treated the same as cows and rats because "they are all animals".

Me: Yup I agree. I treat animals the same way.

That's why I've eaten dog and want to eat cat.

There is no morally relevant distinction between cute and ugly animals.

BTW I find pigs cute. And they're smart. So you shouldn't eat them

Ed Nolan: Silly to say all animals are the same when a polar bear is not the same animal as a rat. Also silly to say there's no "morally relevant distinction" as if it's the universal truth, when the fact is that "morals" are subjective and determined by humans and society. And most people and societies will consider those who say "there is no morally relevant distinction between cute and ugly animals" as "immoral" people.

Me: So what would you say are the morally relevant differences between polar bears and rats?

Social acceptance is different from morality. Is an incoherent moral system really a system?

Ed Nolan: Morality is personal/societal and not universal. And trying to talk about logic and coherence when it comes to morality is illogical and futile.

Me: Ethicists and moral philosophers would disagree on the latter even if they might on the former

Ed Nolan: Doesn't mean they or their adherents are logical or smart. Purist thinking such as viewing all animals as the same is often reductive and illogical, as illogical as conflating morals with universal truths.

Me: First you claim logic and coherence for morality is illogical and futile so we shouldn't care about it, but now you use illogical as a derogatory term

Maybe you haven't made up your mind about whether logic is a good thing

Ed Nolan: You don't get it. I'm saying it is illogical to try to justify morals with logic. Trying to justify treating all animals the same by invoking the logical fallacy that "all animals are the same" is illogical.

Found another data point for the pool of stupid Sinkies who try to justify killing and eating dogs by invoking false logic and trying to make it sound logical. Not only stupid but also dishonest and cowardly to hide behind false logic.

Me: Lol. You just said logic is a bad thing when applied to morality

Guess you changed your mind (again?)

Ed Nolan: Yes I said logic cannot be applied to morality and that's exactly why I disagree with your attempt to apply logic to your moral value of how you treat dogs. You still can't comprehend this?

Me: If "logic cannot be applied to morality", then there's nothing wrong with "false logic"

For someone who keeps bashing logic you seem to implicitly value it a lot

(not to mention that if you claim you cannot apply logic to morality and then start arguing about the situation you are engaging in self confessed futility)

Ed Nolan: Using logic to debunk your attempt to apply logic to morality doesn't mean I'm applying logic to morality myself. Is that too difficult for you to understand or are you just unwilling to admit it?

Don't use strawman. I never bashed logic. I'm bashing stupid Sinkies who try to apply logic to their immoral values.

Using false logic to justify one's moral value is stupid, dishonest and cowardly.

Not justifying one's morality with logic is entirely consistent with pointing out why some Sinkies are stupid in trying to justify their morality with false logic. But of course it is not surprising that stupid Sinkies can't or refuse to comprehend this.

Me: The lady doth protest too much, methinks