Re: Moral Fact Deniers Has Cognitive Deficit in Morality
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2024 9:44 pm
This thread is nothing to do with morality, it is just an argument about the definition of the word, "Objective".
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
This thread is nothing to do with morality, it is just an argument about the definition of the word, "Objective".
All objective facts point to skeptic being an idiot who has nothing better to do than sit on his spooty behind alone in his one room flat with no mates sneering at the world.
What the guy is describing in the passage are psychopaths and sociopaths for whom moral matter illicte limited reactions, and who are indifferent to morality.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 1:45 pm This is the actual text from which VA spawned this thread...
.
Boyd_text.JPG
.
Nobody should need any AI tool to help them see that VA has completely misunderstood it. You don't need to know what the homeostatic consequentialism thing means (that is the topic of the actual paper which nobody really cares about). #what these couple of paragraphs cover is the link between moral beliefs and our actions, which is something I covered under the heading of BDM (belief desire motivation) recently.
He is describing a difference of opinion between himself and moral anti-realists over how to describe what is happening if somebody doesn't draw the expected motivation from their mral beliefs. The anti-realist puts this down to a failure to link beliefs to action in the normal way, Boyd is saying that the person's ability to percieve moral properties is in some manner occluded.
The author absolutely is not saying that philosophers with whom he disagrees voer the matter of realism are cognitively impaired. Nor would any sane or competent person even imagine for a second that such an argument would get published. Anywhere. It shouldn't even have happened in this mediocre forum.
VA just can't read.
The thread which has the word "moral" and "morality" in the subject line isn't about morality?
It's actually a cheap circular argument, chosing to exclude those that do not agree with "his" moral plan by point them out as cognitively deficient. He goes on to say that people who cannot see my moral position suffer from lack of perception.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 1:49 pmIt's not a bad paper. I don't agree with it, but it makes a reasonable argument. Don't let VA's incompetence dirty up poor old mister Boyd.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 12:41 pmHow can I be a moral realist???Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 5:38 am Here is an interesting point from the following;
- HOW TO BE A MORAL REALIST
Easy.
Ignore ALL the evidence of anthropology and drink a cup of stupid.
Boyd didn't make that argument. VA can't read so he interpreted that Boyd was saying that you and I are cognitively deficient, but the actual paper makes no such assertion. And had he done so it would be a notorious scandal that some philosopher had called all his opponents retards in print.Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 10:16 pmIt's actually a cheap circular argument, chosing to exclude those that do not agree with "his" moral plan by point them out as cognitively deficient. He goes on to say that people who cannot see my moral position suffer from lack of perception.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 1:49 pmIt's not a bad paper. I don't agree with it, but it makes a reasonable argument. Don't let VA's incompetence dirty up poor old mister Boyd.
Yes, that's correct.
What an upsetting remark.Hairball is losing it...
I think Boyd is doubling down on this idiocy.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 10:24 pmBoyd didn't make that argument. VA can't read so he interpreted that Boyd was saying that you and I are cognitively deficient, but the actual paper makes no such assertion. And had he done so it would be a notorious scandal that some philosopher had called all his opponents retards in print.Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 10:16 pmIt's actually a cheap circular argument, chosing to exclude those that do not agree with "his" moral plan by point them out as cognitively deficient. He goes on to say that people who cannot see my moral position suffer from lack of perception.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 1:49 pm
It's not a bad paper. I don't agree with it, but it makes a reasonable argument. Don't let VA's incompetence dirty up poor old mister Boyd.
Here is your mistake...Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 9:56 amYou are just making up your strawman based on your contorted opinions. I did not respond to that as you were then on my ignored list.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 9:46 am I don't know why you would put a text into Excel, but I am no longer surprised by weird things you do.
I am sure you can read 20 pages very fast indeed, but I have observed that whatever timne you save by reading fast would probably be better spent reading well. In this thread you claimed to have read a paper by Boyd at least 20 times.
viewtopic.php?t=29659
But you read it wrong, you fucked up, that paper does not accuse "[e.g. Sculptor, Peter Holmes, Flasher..] are the minority who has a cognitive deficit in moral sense and impulse" and it should be obvious anyway that had it claimed all moral antirealists have brain damage, that would have ended to the careers of the author himself as well as both the editor and publisher who carried the work.
You need to read better, so try reading without stupid tricks.
What is the precise point on this?
I quoted the texts and points in the OP.
Show me where I have made a mistake?
This OP was raised in 2020, so there would be a memory limitation.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 11:22 amThe book is an anthology of collected papers, don't be sillly. And I have the book in my physical posession, I posted a photo from it above. I have read the paper in question and IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THAT ARGUMENT. You misread it.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 10:53 amWhat paper??FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 10:01 am
My precise point is that the paper does not lay out the argument you attribute to it, and that kindest explanation for how you made this mistake still even after 20 reads must be that your speed reading technique leads to misunderstandings.
The paper absolutely never gives you any reason to believe that Sculptor or Pete or myself are lacking in anything at all. That is where you made a mistake.... you didn't read properly.
You are whining and complaining about nothing you know about.
I quoted the claim in the OP from;The above is a Chapter in a book and is a not a 20-pages article which you falsely claim above. It is >88 pages in my Word file.
- HOW TO BE A MORAL REALIST
Richard N. Boyd 1982
Chapter 9 in
Essays on Moral Realism (Cornell Paperbacks) 1st Edition
by Geoffrey Sayre-McCord (Editor),
https://www.amazon.com/Essays-Moral-Rea ... 0801495415
I read it many times, but I did not claim I read it more than 20 times.
What is claimed and quoted above is very evident.
See, you try to nail me with this stupid idea but end up kicking your own back, which is typical whenever you try to corner me but failed all the time.
I didn't introduce the notion of 20 pages, you did that here.... And then due to your lack of ability to read you have conflated that with the "at least 20 times" thing. But scroll up, I said "20 reads" and your failure to tell what I wrote even in that sentence does prove that I am onto something with my criticism of your reading ability.
You wrote this....Please don't lie.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:39 am Btw, I have read that related Essay at least 20 times!
The point then was I was against moral-antirealists like yourself and others of the like the person for whom moral judgments are motivationally indifferent. [i.e. moral facts deniers].What I have in mind is the very strong intuition which many philosophers share
that the person for whom moral judgments are motivationally indifferent would not only be psychologically atypical [not representative of a type, group, or class.] but would have some sort of cognitive deficit with respect to moral reasoning as well.
The anti-realist diagnoses this deficit as a failure to recognize a definitional or otherwise necessary connection between Moral goodness and reasons for action.
I think that there is a deep insight in the view that people for whom questions of Moral goodness are irrelevant to how they would choose to act - suffer a cognitive deficit.
I propose that the deficit is not—as the anti-realist would have it—a failure to recognize a necessary connection between moral judgments and reasons for action.
Instead, I suggest, if we adopt a naturalistic conception of moral knowledge we can diagnose in such people a deficit in the capacity to make moral judgments somewhat akin to a perceptual deficit.
Well if you aren't indifferent then why can't you tell us what's wrong with saying that morality is objective ?!?
You now realise that you failed to read the paper properly and that the line quoted here is a lie?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 5:38 am The author [Boyd] therein claimed those who deny moral facts has a cognitive deficit in moral sense just like perceptual deficit in perception.