FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2024 8:50 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2024 3:47 am
I maintain, you as a moral fact denier and moral skeptic, i.e. a moral-antirealist in opposition to moral realism [Boyd et. al] has a Cognitive Moral Deficit as Boyd argued in S4.7:
Here is another AI view of Boyd's S4.7;
AI-wR wrote:
[Summary of S4.7]
Objection to Moral Realism:
Moral judgments supposedly provide a necessary reason for action (e.g., if something is morally good, you should do it).
Facts, especially natural facts, can't provide such a connection.
Therefore, moral facts can't exist (Moral Realism is false).
Naturalist Response:
Moral judgments don't necessarily provide reasons for action.
Non-human beings could understand morality but be indifferent to it.
Even some humans might be indifferent.
The Connection Between Morality and Action:
Moral goodness (as defined by human needs) can provide some reason for action for most humans.
However, this doesn't explain why the connection feels so strong.
The Anti-Realist Intuition:
Many philosophers believe someone indifferent to morality would be cognitively impaired.
They see this as a failure to recognize a necessary link between moral goodness and action.
Boyd's Argument:
People indifferent to morality likely have a cognitive deficit, but not as the anti-realist suggests.
With a naturalistic view of knowledge, this deficit is similar to a perceptual one (e.g., colorblindness).
The Role of Sympathy:
Accessing human well-being and understanding others requires sympathy (empathy).
Sympathy allows us to imagine ourselves in others' situations and feel for them.
This empathy plays a role in both understanding morality (cognition) and caring about it (motivation).
Conclusion:
Someone indifferent to morality likely lacks sympathy, a crucial cognitive tool for moral reasoning.
Their motivational indifference stems from a cognitive deficiency in understanding the impact of actions on others.
That is my point you [as a moral skeptic] have a cognitive deficiency in morality.
The AI didn't assert that moral anti-realists lack understanding or moral motivation at all. You are imagining things because you can't read very well.
It is your long running inability to imagine what other people are thinking that got you into this situation, but your pride is what stopped you from realising you had erred and simply squashing the problem early on.
.... have you been trying to get your AI buddy to say something about me all this time, and failing because it would be unethical for an AI to actually write such a thing?
Yes, AI did not assert moral anti-realists lack understanding or moral motivation at all, but understanding
and adopting moral skepticism or moral nihilism as a personal ideology is different.
I can understand communism, nazism, necrophilla, pedophilla, moral antirealism on an intellectual basis, but that does not mean I adopt or are in those states that drive me into their related action.
You are a self-declared
moral skeptic which mean you do not acknowledge there are moral elements within humanity and yourself.
Thus all your motivations will have no relation to anything that is term 'moral'.
This does not mean do not act 'positive'-in-general, but that has nothing to do with morality as far as you are concern. The most you can rely on human being positive is related to conventions, customs, and compliance with the law with reference to violence and killing of humans.
As a moral realist and objectivist, I believe that all humans have inherent moral elements [neural based] within themselves, thus strive to improve the average moral competence [e.g. moral quotient] within humanity.
This is like those who believe all humans has the inherent potential for intelligence [neural base] and strive to find ways to increase the average intelligence of all humans, e.g. smart drugs, education, training and other methods.