Moral Fact Deniers Has Cognitive Deficit in Morality

[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.

[Iwannaplato]

Oh, I didn't notice the age of the thread. I thought he was still making new threads just for the purpose of bashing on ph.

No, he's ressurected one for that or a similar purpose.

[FlashDangerpants]

This is the actual text from which VA spawned this thread...
.

Boyd_text.JPG (91.74 KiB) Viewed 1169 times

.

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.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

[FlashDangerpants]

Here is an interesting point from the following;

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

I agree with the above point because, moral facts [moral propensities] are inherent in ALL human beings, whilst active in some minority.
Those with an active moral impulse [mirror neurons, etc.] will naturally recognize there are moral facts intuitively and for some, thereupon seek evidences and reasons to justify their existence.
Meanwhile, the majority recognize there are moral facts by virtue of God given moral facts.

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

[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.

..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.

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.

If we adopt a naturalistic conception of moral knowledge we can diagnose in such people a [Moral] deficit in the capacity to make moral judgments somewhat akin to a perceptual deficit.

What I have in mind is the application of a causal theory of moral knowledge to the examination of a feature of moral reasoning which has been well understood in the empiricist tradition since Hume, that is, the role of sympathy [empathy] in moral understanding.

It is also very probably right, as Hume insists, that the operation of sympathy [empathy] is motivationally important: ...

The psychological mechanisms by which all this takes place may be more complicated than Hume imagined, but the fact remains that one and the same psychological mechanism—sympathy [empathy]—plays both a cognitive and a motivational [moral] role in normal human beings.

• 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.
  
  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.
  
  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.

The full resources of naturalistic epistemology permit the moral realist to acknowledge and explain this important insight of moral anti-realists [moral facts deniers].

Agree/Disagree??

eta: View from ChatGpt
viewtopic.php?p=678348#p678348

This thread shows that you cannot read. I have read that paper and it does not claim that moral antirealists are cognitively impaired. If this failing is not caused by your speed reading technique leading you astray, then it would have to be explained by some defect of your own intellectual capabilities.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

What is the precise point on this?
Show me where I have made a mistake?

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.

[Skepdick]

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.

Not only do you have a cognitive deficit in moral reasoning, you seem to be demonstrating one in determining who "actually misread and misunderstood" the paper, and who "read it properly".

Not surprising. Since the distinctions between right (proper) and wrong (improper) understanding; as well as proper (right) and improper (wrong) reading are moral distinctions.

It all confirms the hypothesis of your cognitive moral deficit really.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

What is the precise point on this?
Show me where I have made a mistake?

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.

[Sculptor]

Moral Objectivists are Nazis

[FlashDangerpants]

You are just making up your strawman based on your contorted opinions.

What is the precise point on this?
Show me where I have made a mistake?

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.

[Sculptor]

Correction :
Whilst all Nazis are moral objectivists; that is not to say that all moral objectivists are Nazis, some are just self serving and delusional.

[Atla]

Wait.. could it be that VA also uses this speed-reading technique on our comments? So he reads like one word from every paragraph, and then writes a lengthy response in response to these like 3-4 random words?

If so then.. why would anyone do that?

[FlashDangerpants]

Wait.. could it be that VA also uses this speed-reading technique on our comments? So he reads like one word from every paragraph, and then writes a lengthy response in response to these like 3-4 random words?

If so then.. why would anyone do that?

He might. Although he also doesn't read to find out what you are saying, he only reads to find out why he's right and he doesn't care at all what you are saying. So negligence is another important factor.

[Skepdick]

Moral Objectivists are Nazis

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