Are attacks against morals inherently moralistic?

If someone presses the point that moralizing is bad and should not be done, is that not in and of itself an act of moralizing?

In some ways yes. It depends on the manner of the attack.

Structure 1: There is no grounding for morals, so people shouldn't talk about them as if they are anything other than human inventions.

That is a moralistic statement.

Structure 2: There is no grounding for morals, therefore they are not in any way binding. People do not need to accord them any importance.

That isn't a moralistic statement.

The difference between them - number 1 is normative, number 2 isn't. You can attack morality on non moral grounds, you just need to keep the normativity out.

Normative?

Hmm, I don't know. I think you'll have a difficult time proving the absence of morals. It's dependent on the analyzation.

I don't see how anyone can disabuse morality without expressing a certain degree of moral aptitude.

You might be right. I still err on the side that you can simply treat it as a failed logical proposition. I think choosing to believe logically valid points, and disbelieve invalid ones isn't a moral choice; it's a pragmatic one. From here, if you think moral beliefs are logically invalid, then you simply argue not to accept them. It's not a moral argument. But I could be missing something, and please point it out if I am.

Originally Posted by Slider

Normative?

Hmm, I don't know. I think you'll have a difficult time proving the absence of morals. It's dependent on the analyzation.

I don't see how anyone can disabuse morality without expressing a certain degree of moral aptitude.

Are you asking what normative means, or why I'm using it?

Originally Posted by Geodude

You might be right. I still err on the side that you can simply treat it as a failed logical proposition. I think choosing to believe logically valid points, and disbelieve invalid ones isn't a moral choice; it's a pragmatic one. From here, if you think moral beliefs are logically invalid, then you simply argue not to accept them. It's not a moral argument. But I could be missing something, and please point it out if I am.

I think you're correct, but using that logic can get you into the Fallacy Fallacy.

Argument from fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The fallacy fallacy,is a logical fallacy which assumes that if an argument is fallacious its conclusion must be false.

And can you explain what normative means and why you used it? I looked it up in the dictionary and I'm still clueless.

Heh, yeah I pretty much did run blindly into that fallacy :) I'm not sure if it necessarily kills my argument though. It's not necessary for the point I'm making that believing only logically valid propositions yields true beliefs. All I need is for it to be a non-moral reason for holding those beliefs.

Normative is effectively anything prescriptive. If you make a normative statement, you are intending it to convey some sort of imperative to action. It's a statement that has (explicitly or implicitly) an ought contained in it.

Originally Posted by Geodude

Heh, yeah I pretty much did run blindly into that fallacy :) I'm not sure if it necessarily kills my argument though. It's not necessary for the point I'm making that believing only logically valid propositions yields true beliefs. All I need is for it to be a non-moral reason for holding those beliefs.

Normative is effectively anything prescriptive. If you make a normative statement, you are intending it to convey some sort of imperative to action. It's a statement that has (explicitly or implicitly) an ought contained in it.

Though, I can't quite shake the fact that I'm engaging in sophistry

Originally Posted by Geodude

Heh, yeah I pretty much did run blindly into that fallacy :) I'm not sure if it necessarily kills my argument though. It's not necessary for the point I'm making that believing only logically valid propositions yields true beliefs. All I need is for it to be a non-moral reason for holding those beliefs.

The fallacy fallacy disproves the bolded statement because the fallacy fallacy requires the possibility of a fallacious proposition yielding a true statement. The problem with what you wrote is the location of the word "only". The statement should be fine if you move "only" to immediately after "yields", so that the statement means that correct logic produces only true statements.


Deductive Fallacy
A deductive fallacy, or logical fallacy, is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion. Thus, a deductive fallacy is a fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process.
Deductive fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, I am a grammar nazi at times. Or is it a rules lawyer?

The worst part is, I should really fucking know this stuff too. I used to teach it when I was a Tutor at university. I still think it's sufficient to make my argument fly, in a dirty sophist kinda way :)