Moral Fact Deniers Has Cognitive Deficit in Morality

[Sculptor]

I am so glad to hear that.
Please go ahead.

I did. Did you miss it?

Why not just start by saying what makes it wrong.

I did. Did you miss that too?

I can prove it to you in exactly the same way I can prove to you that "Paris is the Capital of France" is an objective fact.

The factuality of both claims is justified in an equivalent fashion.

For the slow kid in the classroom: that which makes slavery wrong is the exact same thing which makes Paris the capital of France.

Do they practice slavery in Paris?

So you think slavery is wrong objectively?
Please go ahead.

Why not just start by saying what makes it wrong.

[Skepdick]

Do they practice slavery in Paris?

So you think slavery is wrong objectively?
Please go ahead.

So objectively speaking you don't think that the capital of France is Paris?!?

Why not just start by saying what makes it wrong.

I did! Why do you keep missing it?

[Sculptor]

Do they practice slavery in Paris?

So you think slavery is wrong objectively?
Please go ahead.

So objectively speaking you don't think that the capital of France is Paris?!?

Why not just start by saying what makes it wrong.

I did! Why do you keep missing it?

So you think slavery is wrong objectively?

[Skepdick]

So you think slavery is wrong objectively?

So you think Paris is the capital of France objectively?

[iambiguous]

Never mind the fact that you can't reason with fanatics.

Indeed. And hasn't that always been my point? After all, how are the moral fanatics really any different from the moral objectivists?

Don't any number of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...insist they and only they have access to the actual "moral facts" to be found in the world around us...facts pertaining to virtually every single issue that precipitates conflicting goods?

It's just that I can never seem to get those like Veritas Aequitas to take their own theoretical assessments over to the applied ethics board and then, in regard to particular issues like slavery or abortion or gun control, compare and contrast our respective moral philosophies.

That's a pretty fanatical conception of how applied ethics works in practice.

There is no board outside of academia....

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle?

No, really, why doesn't Skepdick actually respond substantively to the points I raised above? Or, for that matter, any of the moral objectivists/realists here?

[Skepdick]

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle?

No, really, why doesn't Skepdick actually respond substantively to the points I raised above? Or, for that matter, any of the moral objectivists/realists here?

Because there's no substance to your objections.

They can be safely ignored.

Applied ethics produces moral outcomes. The philosophical lip service is not interesting except to people who care more about defining what's moral instead of simply being moral.

Talk is cheap etc.

[iambiguous]

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle?

No, really, why doesn't Skepdick actually respond substantively to the points I raised above? Or, for that matter, any of the moral objectivists/realists here?

Because there's no substance to your objections.

They can be safely ignored.

Applied ethics produces moral outcomes. The philosophical lip service is not interesting except to people who care more about defining morality rather than being moral.

Absolutely shameless!

Uh, unless, of course, he/she is right?

[Sculptor]

So you think slavery is wrong objectively?

So you think Paris is the capital of France objectively?

Paris is an area of land which the French has decided to call by the name of Paris. English speakers pronunce it differnently and in anceint times the area was called something else. THis bares no relationship to ANY moral issue. It does not hinge on any subject/object issue either. IN the same way that "Murder" is defined and illegal killing, is also not a objective or subjective issue.
But you need to know that some killing is not regarded as murder. You also ought to know that some instances of murder are regarded as morally right by some and not others. THis is why morals are subjective..

Now why are you so scared to answer my question?
Would you like a simply one, or a different one?

Try this..

Is it objectively immoral to kill a dog?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is an interesting point from the following;

The moral facts deniers [e.g. Sculptor, Peter Holmes, Flasher..] are the minority who has a cognitive deficit in moral sense and impulse.

in [..] = mine

Since you have named me. Can you show me where I denied a "moral fact" - a phrase you have not even taken the trouble to define.

SO can you define "moral fact", and if you would be so kind give some examples of moral facts.

It might help if you would also point to some specific example of where myself (and others named), deny such a thing.

Thank you in advance.

An example of a moral fact is, "slavery is absolutely immoral and no human ought to enslave [own] another human".

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

So "off the cuff" you accused me of lying?

I am saying I was mistaken [did not remember] at present of what I wrote earlier.

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.

But that is a failure to read properly on your part. Scluptor and Pete and I are not persons who lack moral motivation, we are just people who explain morality in different terms to you. If you are an expert on meta-ethics you should understand this already. That you do not is hugely worrying and suggests that you have a problem understanding other people as real people at all.

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.

Well, if you still attribute this to Boyd, that just proves that you cannot read. The rest proves that you are no philosopher. And the furhter implication is that you have a problem with theory of mind [as per the psychological FSCK rather than the philosophical one].

I understand meta-ethics is the study of theories and terms of ethics in a balanced and unbiased manner.

However, in this case you are biased and hold strongly to various views which imply you hold such personal beliefs, i.e. you personally denial and do not accept there are moral facts.
So you have a cognitive deficit in morality.

What is meant re moral realism is,
there are moral facts inherent within you as a human being [universal in all humans], but you have a cognitive deficit in beware that they exists and are in operation within you [of a certain degrees].

Analogically,
there are facts re nutrition inherent within you as a human being [universal in all humans], but you have a cognitive deficit in beware that they exists and are in operation within you [of a certain degrees], e.g. the fact that excessive sugar caused metabolic syndrome that is the cause of various chronic diseases.

There are many other facts within yourself as a human being [universal in all humans] that you have a cognitive deficit, e.g. the 'Why' of your roid-rage.

[Skepdick]

Paris is an area of land which the French has decided to call by the name of Paris.

I know, but why are you telling me any of this?

What Paris is and where Paris is located doesn't in any way address the question: What makes it an objective fact that Paris is the capital of France?

THis bares no relationship to ANY moral issue.

I am in the process of demonstrating that you are lying.

Be patient - we'll get there. You'll come to recognise that you are lying to yourself.

It does not hinge on any subject/object issue either. IN the same way that "Murder" is defined and illegal killing, is also not a objective or subjective issue.

It hinges precisely on the objective fact THAT Paris is the Capital of France.

The same thing which makes Paris the Capital of France is also what makes the wrongness of murder an objective fact.

I am sure you already know and accept this to be true. This is why you are desperately trying to decouple the two issues.
Like the argumentative/contrarian wanker that you are.

But you need to know that some killing is not regarded as murder. You also ought to know that some instances of murder are regarded as morally right by some and not others.

Yeah! Like you need to know that some cities are not regarded as capitals.

You also need to know that some instances of cities are regarded as capitals by some and not others.

Like Jerusalem. Some say it's the capital of Israel. Others say it's not.

THis is why morals are subjective..

So according to your own reasoning Paris being the Capital of France is NOT an objective fact.
And so it also follows that London being the capital of UK is not an objective fact.
There are no objective facts about any city being a capital of any country!


Great. You are an idiot. As if we didn't know it.

Now why are you so scared to answer my question?

Why are you so scared to admit that I already did?

Is it objectively immoral to kill a dog?

You already answered your own question, guy!

Some killings are moral. Irrespective of who or what is being killed.
Some killings are immoral. Irrespective of who or what is being killed.

The fact that the distinction exists demonstrate the objectivity of morality.

There is a material difference between a moral and an immoral killing!

Q.E.D

[FlashDangerpants]

I understand meta-ethics is the study of theories and terms of ethics in a balanced and unbiased manner.

However, in this case you are biased and hold strongly to various views which imply you hold such personal beliefs, i.e. you personally denial and do not accept there are moral facts.
So you have a cognitive deficit in morality.

Are you serious?

[Sculptor]

Here is an interesting point from the following;

The moral facts deniers [e.g. Sculptor, Peter Holmes, Flasher..] are the minority who has a cognitive deficit in moral sense and impulse.

in [..] = mine

Since you have named me. Can you show me where I denied a "moral fact" - a phrase you have not even taken the trouble to define.

SO can you define "moral fact", and if you would be so kind give some examples of moral facts.

It might help if you would also point to some specific example of where myself (and others named), deny such a thing.

Thank you in advance.

An example of a moral fact is, "slavery is absolutely immoral and no human ought to enslave [own] another human".

Not according to Aristotle.
Why is slavery wrong?

[Sculptor]

Paris is an area of land which the French has decided to call by the name of Paris.

I know, but why are you telling me any of this?

What Paris is and where Paris is located doesn't in any way address the question: What makes it an objective fact that Paris is the capital of France?

THis bares no relationship to ANY moral issue.

I am in the process of demonstrating that you are lying.

Be patient - we'll get there. You'll come to recognise that you are lying to yourself.

It does not hinge on any subject/object issue either. IN the same way that "Murder" is defined and illegal killing, is also not a objective or subjective issue.

It hinges precisely on the objective fact THAT Paris is the Capital of France.

The same thing which makes Paris the Capital of France is also what makes the wrongness of murder an objective fact.

I am sure you already know and accept this to be true. This is why you are desperately trying to decouple the two issues.
Like the argumentative/contrarian wanker that you are.

But you need to know that some killing is not regarded as murder. You also ought to know that some instances of murder are regarded as morally right by some and not others.

Yeah! Like you need to know that some cities are not regarded as capitals.

You also need to know that some instances of cities are regarded as capitals by some and not others.

Like Jerusalem. Some say it's the capital of Israel. Others say it's not.

THis is why morals are subjective..

So according to your own reasoning Paris being the Capital of France is NOT an objective fact.
And so it also follows that London being the capital of UK is not an objective fact.
There are no objective facts about any city being a capital of any country!


Great. You are an idiot. As if we didn't know it.

Now why are you so scared to answer my question?

Why are you so scared to admit that I already did?

Is it objectively immoral to kill a dog?

You already answered your own question, guy!

Some killings are moral. Irrespective of who or what is being killed.
Some killings are immoral. Irrespective of who or what is being killed.

The fact that the distinction exists demonstrate the objectivity of morality.

There is a material difference between a moral and an immoral killing!

Q.E.D

You are an idiot. Clueless.

If I kill Hitler one person says it is morally wrong ,another person says morally right.
Use your thick brain.
The difference cannot be materially different since it is the same act,
I gave you a chance. You failed. Back on ignore.
Fucking lightweight

[Skepdick]

You are an idiot. Clueless.

Patience! You are still busy figuring out that the clueless idiot is you.

If I kill Hitler one person says it is morally wrong ,another person says morally right.
Use your thick brain.
The difference cannot be materially different since it is the same act,

Clueless idiot. Use your even thicker brain.

One person says Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, not Palestine.
Another person says that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine, not Israel.

So according to your clueless idiocy there can be no material difference since it is the exact same city.

I gave you a chance.

So generous of you! You gracious chance-giver!

You could've also taken the chance to self-correct instead of embarrassing yourself in public.

You failed. Back on ignore.

Every time I demonstrate that you are a clueless idiot - you go and ignore me.

What do I need to do to make you ignore everyone? That would be quite the gift!