What is so pathetic is you are arguing from ignorance with the guts and stupidity to condemn my points without you reading the essay thoroughly.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 3:09 pmNot really necessary is it? I can simply remind you of what you wrote in your OP...Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:39 amHow did you arrive at the above stupid speculation when you have not read the book and the relevant 'Essay' within that book,The guy is writing a response to an argument that used psychos as an example for some reason, or else he is in the middle of making an argument that psychos demonstrate some fact of reason. But because you are incapabable of analysing a philosophical argument at all, you have just picked a couple of words out of it and fooled yourself you get it.
Essays on Moral Realism
(Cornell Paperbacks) 1st Edition [which contain various Essays of Moral Realism]
Editor: Geoffrey Sayre-McCord.
Nope the author of the specific Essay is not writing about psychos at all.
YOU, pay attention to this, Motivationally Irrelevant means something [about moral reasoning]. Think about it ... I'll give you a moment.
Which makes it entirely clear that motivational irrelevance and morally unconcerned are the same thing.
It's your responsiblity to make the details of the essay and its argument clear then. However, it went over your head, that much is obvious, so that responsibility is alas, one you cannot fulfil.
I highlighted the bits to help you see that your own words are proving me right. The psychologically atipcal factors for persons who are not influenced by moral judgments are things such as psychopathy. Judgments is exactly what the denier of moral fact claims moral assesments are, so we cannot possibly fall under your delusional argument.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:39 amWe 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...the person for whom moral judgments are motivationally indifferent would not only be psychologically atypical but would have some sort of cognitive deficit with respect to moral reasoning as well.
This is so sad. Yes, that is him describing the underlying logic of the other side. He's presenting it as argument to be argued against... sanely, by what appears to be a sensible and decent philosopher until ... and then the whole thing falls into your hands and it gets stupid real fast.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:39 am'Moral facts are motivationally irrelevant' means, to moral deniers who are deficit in moral reasoning, deny there is a logical connection between moral facts and rational or reasons for actions.
Note this in the OP;
[The Moral Deniers argues:]
Mere facts (especially mere natural facts) cannot have this sort of logical connection to rational choice or reasons for action.
Therefore, so the objection goes, there cannot be moral facts;
Moral Realism (or at least naturalistic Moral Realism) is impossible.
Well at this point, either he wrote that stuff in some part of the essay that you have'nt reproduced, or you have failed to grasp his argument most horribly. As the argument you allude to would be stupid, and amount to little more that "I'm right and if you don't know I am right you are mad", which is not the sort of argument any worthwhile philosopher would ever make, the evidence suggests that he asserts no such thing.
Yeah, you didn't understand that part of the essay either.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:39 amThe author did mention sociopaths and con-artists who are potentially evil immoral but imply that is due to psychiatric reasons and they don't argue and deny the logical connection between moral facts and rational or reasons for actions that is the cognitive deficit.
That's terrifying. But it's actually less surprising than you might think. You can'y understand how philosophical argument works, and what the relationship between premise and conclusion is supposed to be like. I can easily believe you can read something 20 times and never undersand it once.
You are merely an empty vessel in terms of Philosophy.
It is also intellectually stupid of you to expect me to reproduce the whole of the >45 pages of the essay for you to read.
One point to take away is, there are loads of philosophers supporting the [Empirical] 'Moral Realist' views based on the justification of moral facts* from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.
* not those of Platonic Forms and from a God.