Moral Fact Deniers Has Cognitive Deficit in Morality

[Harbal]

Moral Objectivists are Nazis

ALL moral subjectivists agree: there's nothing objectively wrong with anything the Nazis did.

This thread is nothing to do with morality, it is just an argument about the definition of the word, "Objective".

[Sculptor]

Moral Objectivists are Nazis

ALL moral subjectivists agree: there's nothing objectively wrong with anything the Nazis did.

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.

[Sculptor]

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.

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.
That is not to say that such persons are not moralists for other reasons, indeed they might be exactly the type of person who thinks their own limited emotional reach into moral conseuqences mandate a set of rules which can be applied the the rest of the world without context or mitigation. Such a person is essentially a moral objectivist, but those morals could easily be defined to protect themselves and their own kind (aristocrats, nazis, the religious faithful) whilst denying moral protections to others.
An moral objectivist is not more likely to adopt the gold rule, categorical imperitive, or utlistarianism as any other psychopath/sociopath.

You simply have to ask yourself what would a moral objectivist look like in Feudal Society or a slave owning society?? They simple would use objectivity to justify how and why the lord's power over the serf and slaves would be acceptible.

[Skepdick]

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.

That's an awful lot of detail for a projection, buddy!

[Skepdick]

Moral Objectivists are Nazis

ALL moral subjectivists agree: there's nothing objectively wrong with anything the Nazis did.

This thread is nothing to do with morality, it is just an argument about the definition of the word, "Objective".

The thread which has the word "moral" and "morality" in the subject line isn't about morality?
The thread which doesn't have the word "objective" in the subject line is about the word "Objective"?

Hairball is losing it...

[Sculptor]

Here is an interesting point from the following;

• HOW TO BE A MORAL REALIST

How can I be a moral realist???
Easy.
Ignore ALL the evidence of anthropology and drink a cup of stupid.

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.

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.

[Sculptor]

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.

That's an awful lot of detail for a projection, buddy!

I hit the target Billy Nomates

[FlashDangerpants]

How can I be a moral realist???
Easy.
Ignore ALL the evidence of anthropology and drink a cup of stupid.

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.

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.

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.

[Skepdick]

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.

That's an awful lot of detail for a projection, buddy!

I hit the target Billy Nomates

So you need glasses too...

[Harbal]

ALL moral subjectivists agree: there's nothing objectively wrong with anything the Nazis did.

This thread is nothing to do with morality, it is just an argument about the definition of the word, "Objective".

The thread which has the word "moral" and "morality" in the subject line isn't about morality?
The thread which doesn't have the word "objective" in the subject line is about the word "Objective"?

Yes, that's correct.

Hairball is losing it...

What an upsetting remark.

[Sculptor]

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.

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.

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.

I think Boyd is doubling down on this idiocy.
He says that the moral realist insists that those how are "indifferent" to moral consequences are mentally atypical.
But for Boyd that is not enough, for Boyd, not only do they have to be mentally atypical but they also have cognitive and perceptual problems too.
I cannot know where Boyd takes this discussion but one thing is for sure, this does not assist VA in his arguments one bit.
NONE of this is relevant because VA is not a moral realist. VA is a moral objectivist which is an entirely different thing. And moral subjectivists, whom he has a beef with are NOT "indifferent" to morality.
Moral subjectivists have a far more nuanced and meaningful inderstanding of the complexities of the moral landscape.
A moral realist, on the other hand, is as likley to accept a subjective and relativist approach to understanding morals accross a range of historical and cultural contexts. as he would to pitch for a moral absolute.
This is where VA completely fails to understand his own orientation in the spectra of moral understandings. VA is pushing for an absolutist morality such that regardless of the mitigations of human evolution, history and culture you can make a moral rules which has eternal and universal applicabilty.
In this is mischaracterises moral subjectivists as immoral and amoral where nothing could be further from the truth. For to be truly moral you have to be subjective and take into account the mitigations and viccisitudes of the contexts and situations of the moral players.

And this is why I posed the question about moral objectivits in a a feudal or slave owning society. Are we to believe that all the leadership and the masters of the moral landscape were psychopathic and lacking in cognition?? NO. Those that set moral standards, presumably believed that their moral world was right and devised moral rules to protect themselves
To wit: penalties for rape in the Goryn Law Code were cheaper if you raped a slave, a foreigner, no penalty for your own slave, and a high price to pay for a citizen.
Runnaway slaves in Rome hasd "FUG(itive)" carved into their forehead; full rights under the law were restricted to a certain class of Rome, denied to ordinary freemen.
Aristotle said that war was naturally just and should be practiced against the weak.
So for thousands of years moral realists were making their culturally contextual rules all of which I assume VA would not agree with?

And what laughable thing does he suggest is morally objective?? Breathing!

[Sculptor]

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.

You 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.

What is the precise point on this?
I quoted the texts and points in the OP.

Show me where I have made a mistake?

Here is your mistake...

You are, as usual, confused by your own prejudice.
The test talks about "moral realists", in distinction to those that are "indifferent" to morals.(and that these are mentally atypical)
Neither of these categories are able to contribute to the debate about moral subjectivism and moral objectivism.
Moral Subjectivists and relativists are NOT "indifferent" to morality, in fact they seek a far more naunced and sensitive understanding of the blint instrument that the objectivist would use to bash people over the head with. I would go further to say that only a moral relativist can be a moral realist in seeking a thicker and deeper understanding of the moral system whist moral objectivist pretends that Ein Führer, eine Regel, ein Volk, ein moralisches System, could ever work for more than a week. (if that)

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

What paper??
You are whining and complaining about nothing you know about.

I quoted the claim in the OP from;

• 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

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.
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.

The 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.

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....

Btw, I have read that related Essay at least 20 times!

Please don't lie.

This OP was raised in 2020, so there would be a memory limitation.
When I deny I have read it 20 times, that is based on "off the cuff" on my present cognition of something that happened 4 years ago.

However, on reviewing the file [.. I extracted that chapter 9 and saved it as a separate file] and judging by the amount of notes and summaries I did on that chapter 9, I would have read it at least 20 times especially when it was a serious issue.

Here again the relevant section:

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.

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].
Worst, you are in addition a moral skeptic.
It is true there is a moral deficit, i.e. in terms of perceptual deficit in not being able to sense [perceive] the actual moral function existing within all humans and thus, yourself.

A psychopath would be different from those who like you are indifferent to moral realism.
A psychopath moral network in the brain is damaged such that he does not have a possibility to unfold his existing inherent moral potential.
This is just like a person whose puberty potential is damaged thus his puberty is stopped, but his inherent potential is still there.

I still insist you [& your like] have a moral deficit, i.e. in terms of a perceptual deficit with a moral blindness to understand you have an inherent moral potential [element of moral realism] which needs to be developed and cultivated.

[Skepdick]

And moral subjectivists, whom he has a beef with are NOT "indifferent" to morality.

Well if you aren't indifferent then why can't you tell us what's wrong with saying that morality is objective ?!?

If there's nothing wrong with saying it then great!
If something's wrong with saying it, but it's just your opinion - why should anyone care?

[FlashDangerpants]

The author [Boyd] therein claimed those who deny moral facts has a cognitive deficit in moral sense just like perceptual deficit in perception.

You now realise that you failed to read the paper properly and that the line quoted here is a lie?