Moral Fact Deniers Has Cognitive Deficit in Morality

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

How did you arrive at the above stupid speculation when you have not read the book and the relevant 'Essay' within that book,
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.

Not really necessary is it? I can simply remind you of what you wrote in your OP...

• 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.

Which makes it entirely clear that motivational irrelevance and morally unconcerned are the same thing.

You are speaking from ignorance of the full perspective of the Essay, note this;

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.

..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.

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.

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.

'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.

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.

The author asserts it is the inability of moral facts deniers to rationalize, feel and sense this logical connection between moral facts and rational or reasons for actions.
This deficit in moral reasoning is the cognitive deficit.

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.

The 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.

Yeah, you didn't understand that part of the essay either.

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

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.

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.
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.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

Nope, the worrying thing here is how fucking obvious it is that I am right. You claim to have read the 45 page essay 20 times , but anyone can tell at a glance that you've got it entirely wrong.

[uwot]

Within the field of knowledge of 'What are Right and Wrong Actions' there is the PURE and APPLIED aspects. At present it is not definite, but generally what is PURE is attributed to Morality while Ethics deals with the APPLIED, i.e. the practical aspects.
It can be vice-versa as long as one define which is suppose to be the PURE and which is to be the APPLIED.

Sounds like you are trying to distinguish ethics from meta-ethics. Even at present the distinction is fairly definite and not very vice-versa.

Within Morality [PURE] the objective to abstract facts of generic principles of right and wrong actions within humanity which is, like Science abstracting general principles of the physical nature [Laws of Nature, e.g. Newtonian, Einsteinian, QM, & those in other Sciences etc.].

It's not a good analogy. 'Laws of nature' when defined by the likes of Newton and Einstein are simply mathematical descriptions of what can be seen to happen. You can hurl all sorts of shit at another person and with the appropriate equipment, you can find out whether F=ma.
If instead of throwing shit at people you are killing them, the science is not in the pile of bodies, which tells you nothing about the moral status of the experiment, it is instead in the reaction of witnesses, and the effect it has on particular parts of the brain, which thanks to brain imaging can be measured. Unlike flying shit, the F is not always the same. What the paper you are citing is basically saying, is that there is a function of the brain called empathy that some people lack. Big deal. Where the author drops his pants is taking the leap that you can identify such people by their anti-realism. That, I would suggest, is bollocks.

Since the Golden Rule is generated from the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics, it is a relative moral fact which is objective [independent of individual opinion and beliefs].

The golden rule is a pretty good rule of thumb, in my book. I could try and justify it with all sorts of post hoc arguments, but at the end of the day, I just happen to have a level of empathy that makes me think the world would be a nicer place if I don't throw shit at people, but not so much that I don't think some fuckers deserve it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Within the field of knowledge of 'What are Right and Wrong Actions' there is the PURE and APPLIED aspects. At present it is not definite, but generally what is PURE is attributed to Morality while Ethics deals with the APPLIED, i.e. the practical aspects.
It can be vice-versa as long as one define which is suppose to be the PURE and which is to be the APPLIED.

Sounds like you are trying to distinguish ethics from meta-ethics.
Even at present the distinction is fairly definite and not very vice-versa.

The point is we are getting to the truth of the matter and if meta-ethics, normative ethics, meta-metaethics are necessary, then they have to be used. The question is whether the arguments presented are sound or not.

I have read tons of materials on Morality and Ethics very recently and noted there are quite a number of philosophers using the terms 'morality' and 'ethics' in their own definitions. Point is most philosophers do not apply the PURE and APPLIED categories when discussing Morality and Ethics - this is one of the root of the problem why so many are talking pass each other.

Within Morality [PURE] the objective to abstract facts of generic principles of right and wrong actions within humanity which is, like Science abstracting general principles of the physical nature [Laws of Nature, e.g. Newtonian, Einsteinian, QM, & those in other Sciences etc.].

It's not a good analogy. 'Laws of nature' when defined by the likes of Newton and Einstein are simply mathematical descriptions of what can be seen to happen. You can hurl all sorts of shit at another person and with the appropriate equipment, you can find out whether F=ma.
If instead of throwing shit at people you are killing them, the science is not in the pile of bodies, which tells you nothing about the moral status of the experiment, it is instead in the reaction of witnesses, and the effect it has on particular parts of the brain, which thanks to brain imaging can be measured. Unlike flying shit, the F is not always the same.

It is definitely a good analogy on how any specific field of knowledge derives its grounding principles to generate further theories and to be applied in practice.
I stated Laws of Nature which is meant to be in general.
I gave Laws with Physics as examples, but note I mentioned "other Sciences".
What is more pertinent in this case would be Laws of Human Nature.

Morality, the PURE aspects of what is right and wrong, abstracts principles of human nature from empirical evidences justified with philosophical reasoning to ground moral theories and ethical practices.

What the paper you are citing is basically saying, is that there is a function of the brain called empathy that some people lack. Big deal.
Where the author drops his pants is taking the leap that you can identify such people by their anti-realism. That, I would suggest, is bollocks.

Note the author mentioned as in the OP.

• "The full resources of naturalistic epistemology permit the moral realist to acknowledge and explain this important insight of moral anti-realists."

Elsewhere he stated;

I have argued that
if the full resources of naturalistic and realistic conceptions of scientific knowledge and scientific language are deployed
and if the right sort of positive theory of the good is advanced,
then it is possible to make a plausible case for Moral Realism in response to typical anti-realist challenges.

Empathy is mentioned in the paper. Empathy is one factor of morality and ethics.
What he meant and implied by cognitive deficit in this case is the inability to recognize ["cognized"] thus, the inability to assess/rationalize the logical connection between moral judgments and moral actions.

The author did not conclude that one is definitely an anti-realist if one have such a cognitive deficit. There are many other reasons why a person is an anti-realist, and anti-realists comprised of different and contrasting views.
Rather those who are anti-realists and hold there are no moral facts, are most likely to have such a cognitive deficit, triggered by a lack of empathy and other reasons.

Since the Golden Rule is generated from the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics, it is a relative moral fact which is objective [independent of individual opinion and beliefs].

The golden rule is a pretty good rule of thumb, in my book. I could try and justify it with all sorts of post hoc arguments, but at the end of the day, I just happen to have a level of empathy that makes me think the world would be a nicer place if I don't throw shit at people, but not so much that I don't think some fuckers deserve it.

The algorithm for morality and ethics comprised of a complex network of neurons and empathy [mirror neurons] are merely one part of that complex set.

If you recognized the 'Golden Rule', then that is a moral fact of the objective Golden Rule derived from the moral framework. So why are you denying there are no moral facts.
But I stated the 'Golden Rule' is not a strong moral fact for the purpose of grounding moral actions.
We need to establish stronger moral facts from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning for the purpose of grounding moral and ethical actions.

[uwot]

But I stated the 'Golden Rule' is not a strong moral fact for the purpose of grounding moral actions.

Why do moral actions need to be grounded?

[Sculptor]

"Moral Fact Deniers HAVE A Cognitive Deficit in Morality".

Naive Moral Objectivists have problems with parsing grammar.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But I stated the 'Golden Rule' is not a strong moral fact for the purpose of grounding moral actions.

Why do moral actions need to be grounded?

Do I really have to answer the above especially when this is a philosophy forum?

That is the most basic point of logic,
i.e. the conclusion must follow from minor premise to the ground [Major Premise].
So one's argument must be grounded.
In addition, the ground and minor premise must both be Justified True Beliefs.

If moral actions are not grounded, then there is the possibility of the emergence of terrible evil. People without proper moral grounds to limit their actions can kill and harm other people arbitrarily and there is no grounds to prevent them from happening in the future.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Moral Fact Deniers HAVE A Cognitive Deficit in Morality".

Naive Moral Objectivists have problems with parsing grammar.

This is not a Forum on "English".

I don't claim to be a Moral Objectivists.
I qualified clearly in the OP, my moral facts has nothing to do with those of the theists, God and Platonic Forms which claimed absolute objectivity.

My genre is that of empirical moral realism comprising relative objective moral facts, just like scientific facts, albeit of a lesser quality.
Something along this line of argument;

How to be a Moral Realist
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29683

[uwot]

That is the most basic point of logic,
i.e. the conclusion must follow from minor premise to the ground [Major Premise].
So one's argument must be grounded.
In addition, the ground and minor premise must both be Justified True Beliefs.

If moral actions are not grounded, then there is the possibility of the emergence of terrible evil.

The title of your thread is "Moral Fact Deniers Has Cognitive Deficit in Morality." How is logic going to heal a cognitive deficit?

[FlashDangerpants]

FFS Veriats, are you still doing this stupid debate?

how have you not realised yet that if the dude you are paraphrasing had actually made the argument you describe, we would all know about it already. Such a shocking argument as "everyone who doesn't agree with me is brain damaged" would make him the most controversial philosopher alive today. That's how it was so obvious that you fucked up.

Just get a grip, your constant stupid shit is irrritating.

[Sculptor]

"Moral Fact Deniers HAVE A Cognitive Deficit in Morality".

Naive Moral Objectivists have problems with parsing grammar.

This is not a Forum on "English".

I don't claim to be a Moral Objectivists.
I qualified clearly in the OP, my moral facts has nothing to do with those of the theists, God and Platonic Forms which claimed absolute objectivity.

My genre is that of empirical moral realism comprising relative objective moral facts, just like scientific facts, albeit of a lesser quality.
Something along this line of argument;

How to be a Moral Realist
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29683

Keep taking the pills

[Veritas Aequitas]

That is the most basic point of logic,
i.e. the conclusion must follow from minor premise to the ground [Major Premise].
So one's argument must be grounded.
In addition, the ground and minor premise must both be Justified True Beliefs.

If moral actions are not grounded, then there is the possibility of the emergence of terrible evil.

The title of your thread is "Moral Fact Deniers Has Cognitive Deficit in Morality." How is logic going to heal a cognitive deficit?

It is from logical inference that one reach the hypothesis.
"Moral Fact Deniers Ha[ve] Cognitive Deficit in Morality."

A cognitive deficit of any kind is due to the inefficient neural wiring of the specific function within the brain. E.g. the mirror neurons [for empathy] and other parts of the brain involved in the competency of morality.

Thus to improve the cognitive competency [in this case] of morality, humanity must find solutions to rewire the neurons to the expected standard.

There are many methods available at present to improve the cognitive faculties, e.g. in memory, intelligence, critical thinking, emotional intelligence, etc. But unfortunately the progress of these methods at present are very slow with small increments.

At present, there are ways to improve the moral cognition but the inherent moral function which has merely unfold in recent evolution time, is much more slower than the above. As such, there is not much hope to increase the present average moral cognitivity of humanity expeditiously, especially with people like Peter Holmes, Sculptor, Flasher and yourself[?].

However I am very optimistic, the improvement of the moral cognitivity for future generations can be done greatly and exponentially due to the advances of the Human Connectome Project - Mapping of the human brain & neurons to their activities.
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

But is critical is we must recognize the average human at present has low moral cognitivity or moral quotient [MQ] and that the moral fact deniers has bad deficit moral cognitivity so that improvements can be made in the future.

[Veritas Aequitas]

FFS Veriats, are you still doing this stupid debate?

how have you not realised yet that if the dude you are paraphrasing had actually made the argument you describe, we would all know about it already. Such a shocking argument as "everyone who doesn't agree with me is brain damaged" would make him the most controversial philosopher alive today. That's how it was so obvious that you fucked up.

Just get a grip, your constant stupid shit is irrritating.

When you are so dogmatic with the Analytic Philosophy views, your defense mechanisms will shut you off from any rational argument from the author.

It is the same with fundy theists who would in no way accept any rational arguments from non-theists.

The author did not accuse them of 'brain damaged' but rather their moral cognitivity or moral quotient is underdeveloped.

Note the experiment [selective attention] of not cognizing the 500 pound gorilla which is a temporary cognitive deficit, but in your case, it is a permanent moral cognitive deficit of your inability to recognize justified moral facts. [btw not of God and Plato's].

In addition, you are also making the exception for the need of grounds for your view in the case of morality [which you wrongly identified with].
How can you decide on what is right or wrong without any justified grounds and objective moral standards?

Do more research on what is morality-proper.

[FlashDangerpants]

FFS Veriats, are you still doing this stupid debate?

how have you not realised yet that if the dude you are paraphrasing had actually made the argument you describe, we would all know about it already. Such a shocking argument as "everyone who doesn't agree with me is brain damaged" would make him the most controversial philosopher alive today. That's how it was so obvious that you fucked up.

Just get a grip, your constant stupid shit is irrritating.

When you are so dogmatic with the Analytic Philosophy views, your defense mechanisms will shut you off from any rational argument from the author.

It is the same with fundy theists who would in no way accept any rational arguments from non-theists.

The author did not accuse them of 'brain damaged' but rather their moral cognitivity or moral quotient is underdeveloped.

Note the experiment [selective attention] of not cognizing the 500 pound gorilla which is a temporary cognitive deficit, but in your case, it is a permanent moral cognitive deficit of your inability to recognize justified moral facts. [btw not of God and Plato's].

In addition, you are also making the exception for the need of grounds for your view in the case of morality [which you wrongly identified with].
How can you decide on what is right or wrong without any justified grounds and objective moral standards?

Do more research on what is morality-proper.

That changes nothing. A philosopher who argues in a publication that anyone who disagrees with him doing so because they are cognitively impaired would be the most infamous living philosopher. Your dude does not make that argument, you cannot read and comprehend, which is evident not just on the basis of your failing in this particular case, but in your everyday efforts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

FFS Veriats, are you still doing this stupid debate?

how have you not realised yet that if the dude you are paraphrasing had actually made the argument you describe, we would all know about it already. Such a shocking argument as "everyone who doesn't agree with me is brain damaged" would make him the most controversial philosopher alive today. That's how it was so obvious that you fucked up.

Just get a grip, your constant stupid shit is irrritating.

When you are so dogmatic with the Analytic Philosophy views, your defense mechanisms will shut you off from any rational argument from the author.

It is the same with fundy theists who would in no way accept any rational arguments from non-theists.

The author did not accuse them of 'brain damaged' but rather their moral cognitivity or moral quotient is underdeveloped.

Note the experiment [selective attention] of not cognizing the 500 pound gorilla which is a temporary cognitive deficit, but in your case, it is a permanent moral cognitive deficit of your inability to recognize justified moral facts. [btw not of God and Plato's].

In addition, you are also making the exception for the need of grounds for your view in the case of morality [which you wrongly identified with].
How can you decide on what is right or wrong without any justified grounds and objective moral standards?

Do more research on what is morality-proper.

That changes nothing. A philosopher who argues in a publication that anyone who disagrees with him doing so because they are cognitively impaired would be the most infamous living philosopher. Your dude does not make that argument, you cannot read and comprehend, which is evident not just on the basis of your failing in this particular case, but in your everyday efforts.

Note I extracted the quote in the OP the above from section 4.7;
4.7 Morality, motivation, and rationality 342
from this paper;

How to be a Moral Realist
by RICHARD N. BOYD
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29683

viewtopic.php?p=460339#p460339