Re: FDP has a Cognitive Moral Deficit in Morality
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2024 10:24 am
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
So you admit having tested it on yourself, referring to yourself as "salad-brain". Okay.
You are wrong for the simple and obvious reason that when Boyd describes a morally unconcerned person he is referring to somebody who does not take moral feelings, dispositions, rules or any other form of judgment into account. He is talking about people who don't think it matters whether what they do is right or wrong and do not base their decisions on such matters. Observation would be enough to show that I am not such a person and that it is offensive that you continue to insist that I am.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 8:19 am As per the definition of 'moral skepticism' FDP would thus be "morally unconcerned person" the person for whom moral facts are motivationally irrelevant, thus according to the article in OP and the summary above, suffers a cognitive [perceptual] moral deficit.
In addition, FDP is a moral fact denier, i.e. deny moral facts exist at all, while Boyd argued and indicated above, there are moral facts.
FDP keep insisting I have misinterpreted Boyd but he did not give sufficient justifications instead relied on some cherry picked sentences which are not significant to the issue plus picking other side issues.
FDP, I suggest you scrutinize every sentence of S4.7 and show me where I am wrong.
Observation is precisely how I've arrived at the conclusion that you are such a person.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 2:07 pm You are wrong for the simple and obvious reason that when Boyd describes a morally unconcerned person he is referring to somebody who does not take moral feelings, dispositions, rules or any other form of judgment into account. He is talking about people who don't think it matters whether what they do is right or wrong and do not base their decisions on such matters. Observation would be enough to show that I am not such a person and that it is offensive that you continue to insist that I am.
It is shameful when you are the one who could not understand Boyd's views and not me?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 2:07 pmYou are wrong for the simple and obvious reason that when Boyd describes a morally unconcerned person he is referring to somebody who does not take moral feelings, dispositions, rules or any other form of judgment into account. He is talking about people who don't think it matters whether what they do is right or wrong and do not base their decisions on such matters. Observation would be enough to show that I am not such a person and that it is offensive that you continue to insist that I am.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 8:19 am As per the definition of 'moral skepticism' FDP would thus be "morally unconcerned person" the person for whom moral facts are motivationally irrelevant, thus according to the article in OP and the summary above, suffers a cognitive [perceptual] moral deficit.
In addition, FDP is a moral fact denier, i.e. deny moral facts exist at all, while Boyd argued and indicated above, there are moral facts.
FDP keep insisting I have misinterpreted Boyd but he did not give sufficient justifications instead relied on some cherry picked sentences which are not significant to the issue plus picking other side issues.
FDP, I suggest you scrutinize every sentence of S4.7 and show me where I am wrong.
That is simply what "morally unconcerned" means in natural language. If Boyd were going to overwrite that with a technical definition of his own, there would be a paragraph explaining that. There is no such paragraph. That you claim to have scrtuinized so deeply but don't have enough experience in these matters after so many years to know to look for this shows that you have never read properly, not even once.
You are the morally unconcerned person defined as above, i.e.Boyd wrote:We are now in a position to see why
the morally unconcerned person,
the person for whom moral facts are motivationally irrelevant, probably suffers a cognitive deficit with respect to moral reasoning.
As a morally unconcerned person as a moral skeptic on a personal basis, you don't recognize empathy as a moral fact, thus you are morally deficient in this sense.Boyd wrote:Such a person would have to be deficient in sympathy [empathy], because the motivational role of sympathy [empathy] is precisely to make moral facts motivationally relevant.
Thus FDP as a self-declared Moral Skeptic has a deficient with respect to a cognitive capacity (sympathy [empathy]) which is ordinarily important for the correct assessment of moral facts.Boyd wrote:In consequence, she or he would be deficient with respect to a cognitive capacity (sympathy [empathy]) which is ordinarily important for the correct assessment of moral facts.
The motivational deficiency would, as a matter of contingent fact about human psychology, be a cognitive deficiency as well.
This conversation has reached the end of what is possible and is going round in one of those boring circles you can endure forever, but I will not. It's useful life has ended. Any time I want to make a few particular points about your behaviour and attitude problems, I can link to this thread. Any time the point is whether you are capable of reading moderately complex philosophical essays, again this thread is the proof you cannot.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 4:23 am Based on your expectations, you should be the one apologizing to me for insulting my comprehensive skills. But from my perspective, I am not expecting such childish matters from an empty vessel.
Running away?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 11:29 amThis conversation has reached the end of what is possible and is going round in one of those boring circles you can endure forever, but I will not. It's useful life has ended. Any time I want to make a few particular points about your behaviour and attitude problems, I can link to this thread. Any time the point is whether you are capable of reading moderately complex philosophical essays, again this thread is the proof you cannot.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 4:23 am Based on your expectations, you should be the one apologizing to me for insulting my comprehensive skills. But from my perspective, I am not expecting such childish matters from an empty vessel.
And if the question to be considered is about whether you as an individual show any signs of improvment after years of effort.... this thread suggests you do not improve at all and even after 4 years you cannot recognise your own mistakes when they are clearly spelled out for you. Same as you also failed to see the issues with your ragged old oughtness-to-breath argument and you still use that stupid impossiblity-to-be-real religious one. Unless there is a substantial change to your approach to philosophy, we can report that you actually peaked about 5 years ago and now you are just doing the same things but with AI to play Henry to your IC, or wizzy to your jacobi.
To take this any further in substance, we would have to raise issues that would send you into one of your epic sulks. So don't take this any further. I will link back to this thread when I want to make one of the above points, that's then end of the matter.
Why? We're done with the nonsense about me having a cognitive deficit.
If you have rational argument to argue your case, go ahead.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:25 amWhy? We're done with the nonsense about me having a cognitive deficit.
Do you want the conversation to be about your autistic tendencies and how they explain this thread?
Ok , show me. Give me an explanation of why no professional philosopher would ever publish a paper arguing that other philosophers who hold a position counter to his must have a cognitive deficit.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:07 amIf you have rational argument to argue your case, go ahead.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:25 amWhy? We're done with the nonsense about me having a cognitive deficit.
Do you want the conversation to be about your autistic tendencies and how they explain this thread?
I have researched enough about 'autism' to know I don't fit into that spectrum.
I have argued, you are the one who is more like to fit within the autism spectrum in not being able to understand [not agree] with my point of view, thus manufacturing strawman[s] against me.
Boyd did not specifically assert "other philosophers" but he argued anyone who is morally unconcerned, e.g. moral skeptics or moral nihilists has a moral cognitive deficit in [perceptual] in realizing moral facts within themselves, e.g. empathy.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:08 pmOk , show me. Give me an explanation of why no professional philosopher would ever publish a paper arguing that other philosophers who hold a position counter to his must have a cognitive deficit.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:07 amIf you have rational argument to argue your case, go ahead.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:25 am
Why? We're done with the nonsense about me having a cognitive deficit.
Do you want the conversation to be about your autistic tendencies and how they explain this thread?
I have researched enough about 'autism' to know I don't fit into that spectrum.
I have argued, you are the one who is more like to fit within the autism spectrum in not being able to understand [not agree] with my point of view, thus manufacturing strawman[s] against me.
Also, speak with a doctor, you are undiagnosed and that isn't good for you. All you really have to do is show him the spreadsheet of the Quran, he'll arrange the tests right away.