Moral Fact Deniers Has Cognitive Deficit in Morality

[uwot]

...or goodwill.

Henry, you are lowering the tone of this forum by saying something sensible.

[Impenitent]

...or goodwill.

Henry, you are lowering the tone of this forum by saying something sensible.

yeah, he does that from time to time...

-Imp

[uwot]

I don't think it should be encouraged.

[henry quirk]

5D35659D-C92F-418E-B949-81D5D3B426C9.jpeg (85.26 KiB) Viewed 2964 times

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's also lazy and stupid and Veritas has misread his source material, which blatantly does not accuse "moral fact deniers" of any cognitive deficit.

I did not claim the above is a proven certain conclusion.

I noted 'probably' in the quoted;

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.

Dude, pay attention to what you are doing. Motivationally Irrelevant means something. Think about it ... I'll give you a moment.

Did you get there yet? That's right, people who find morality "motivationally irrelevant" are psychopaths, sociopaths, and others that we might in normal life describe as morally disordered if we want get all Victorian. Motivational relevance means that you take something into account when you are deciding what you want to do. You know, like how even I, a denier of moral fact, won't randomly stab any strangers today, because I don't want to do such an immoral thing. Morality is motivationally relevant to me because I am not a psychopath.

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.

You are incompetent, a buffoon, a foolish and deluded bulshit artist. You have misread your source material, which blatantly does not accuse "moral fact deniers" of any cognitive deficit.

However if one were to read the whole book, 'cognitive moral deficit' is very likely as supported by the various researches in psychology, the neurosciences, and the likes.

You haven't read the book from which you lifted this "argument"?

You are the real incompetent, a buffoon, a foolish and deluded bullshit artist who is very ignorant of what-is-morality in its full perspective.

You won't stab anyone??
It is so obvious you lack 'empathy' i.e. an element of morality, as evident with your "literary violence and evil" in your posts.
I believe that violence can explode to killing your grandmother/kins for 20 cents.

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.


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

..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.

'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.

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.

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.

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

[Veritas Aequitas]

Justified Moral facts are imperative as standards and GUIDEs to regulate human actions within an efficient Moral & Ethical Framework and System.

The problem there is who does the justification?

At the present the most efficient Framework and System of Knowledge is Science.
Who does the justifications in the Scientific Framework?
Answer: Humans who are scientists.

The Moral & Ethical Framework and System is supposedly efficient [has to reach optimal efficiency.
Who does the justifications in the Moral Framework and System?
Answer: Human moral agents.
Unlike Science, within moral systems, ALL humans must strive to be competent moral agents.

Note I stated, all moral facts must be justified with empirical evidences just like Science, plus additionally, the highest philosophical reasoning.

[Skepdick]

Dunno mate. You show me the passage you lifted that quote from, and I'll try and remember.

I am not particularly fussy - pick any time you've used the word "morality" and go for it.

Well, call me old fashioned, but until a living creature or artificial intelligence can make up its own mind about what it values, it's not all that intelligent in my book.

Interesting. So do you value "intelligence"?

Mind you, there's a bunch of values some human beings have that persuade me they're not terribly intelligent.

Would also love to hear your ontological conception of "intelligence"... would be pretty awkward to fall into circularities by virtue of a poor definition.

[Skepdick]

If you are making the utterly banal point that it is we human beings that do the justification, well done, have a lollipop, sit in the corner and shut the fuck up. If not, which 'we'?

There is only one "we". The only significant variable to which downward causality can be attributed - the human species. Us (mostly) hairless apes that have been running around this planet for the last few hundred thousand years.

People have tried to build ethical systems on reasoned and even logical grounds - Utilitarianism springs to mind. Hasn't worked so far

Is kinda difficult to argue agains this point unless you tell me how you'd know if a system "worked".

because people have feelings about 'moral' subjects which are completely immune to logic or reason, but which they will try to defend with post hoc logic or reason. No one has succeeded with that either, but who knows? Maybe the fine contributors to this forum will finally nail it.

Is kinda difficult to argue agains this point too unless you tell me how you'd know if somebody has "succeeded in finally nailing it"

Either way, it sounds to me you have a value system for "working and successful systems" that you aren't telling us about. Is it one of those "I'll know it when I see it" things?

[uwot]

If you are making the utterly banal point that it is we human beings that do the justification, well done, have a lollipop, sit in the corner and shut the fuck up. If not, which 'we'?

There is only one "we". The only significant variable to which downward causality can be attributed - the human species. Us (mostly) hairless apes that have been running around this planet for the last few hundred thousand years.

Oh brilliant, you are making the utterly banal point that it is we human beings that do the justification, well done, have a lollipop, sit in the corner and shut the fuck up.

[Skepdick]

Oh brilliant, you are making the utterly banal point that it is we human beings that do the justification, well done, have a lollipop, sit in the corner and shut the fuck up.

Lead the way.

Justify what it would mean for a moral system "to work"; or "to succeed". Tell us all about the normative point of view from which you are asserting that all current attempts "haven't worked so far".

It's almost as if you have some non-banal criteria for moral success. Is language getting in your way of expressing them or something?

[uwot]

Note I stated, all moral facts must be justified with empirical evidences just like Science...

Well assuming a crude model of science, empirical evidence is simply the stuff you can see happen. So for instance, if you drop something, it will fall to the ground. That is a basic 'scientific' fact. It gets a bit more sciency if you repeat the experiment, make all sorts of measurements and come up with a formula that accounts for the empirical evidence in a way that suits whatever purpose you have for the information. If your criteria are met, then it is a 'fact' that your scientific model works.

...plus additionally, the highest philosophical reasoning.

You get to philosophical reasoning when you've done all the science bits. If, to use the same example, you want to understand why things fall to the ground, you can make up some model like curved spacetime. But it doesn't follow from the fact that the mathematics does what you want it to that the model it is based on is a fact, unless of course you choose to define 'fact' that way.
So broadly speaking, in science there is observation, measurement, mathematical modelling and if you fancy it, philosophical modelling. Any or all of which you can call 'facts'. What are the 'moral facts' about abortion? Or eating meat? Euthanasia, assassination, demanding that people wear face masks? The empirical evidence is quite clearly that people have radically different views. The only thing analogous to dropped things falling, which everyone can see, is that there are dead bodies involved.

[Skepdick]

Well assuming a crude model of science, empirical evidence is simply the stuff you can see happen. So for instance, if you drop something, it will fall to the ground. That is a basic 'scientific' fact.

I can see you (and everybody else) making assertions about the failure of systems. It's happening.

That's straight out of the adaptive systems textbook. Is called negative feedback.

[Peter Holmes]

What are the 'moral facts' about abortion? Or eating meat? Euthanasia, assassination, demanding that people wear face masks? The empirical evidence is quite clearly that people have radically different views. The only thing analogous to dropped things falling, which everyone can see, is that there are dead bodies involved.

Nicely put. And excellent questions, which moral realists and objectivists can't answer coherently. (I'd add capital punishment to the mix.)

Any fact they offer doesn't entail a moral claim, so negating the moral claim doesn't produce a contradiction. (Refuting examples welcome.)

And any moral claim offered to justify a moral claim just pushes the question back: if x is morally wrong because y is morally wrong, why is y morally wrong?

Question: What are the facts about abortion?

Answer?: Well, one fact about abortion is that it's [morally wrong / not morally wrong].

That answer is ridiculous, and only a moral objectivist could think otherwise.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note I stated, all moral facts must be justified with empirical evidences just like Science...

Well assuming a crude model of science, empirical evidence is simply the stuff you can see happen. So for instance, if you drop something, it will fall to the ground. That is a basic 'scientific' fact. It gets a bit more sciency if you repeat the experiment, make all sorts of measurements and come up with a formula that accounts for the empirical evidence in a way that suits whatever purpose you have for the information. If your criteria are met, then it is a 'fact' that your scientific model works.

...plus additionally, the highest philosophical reasoning.

You get to philosophical reasoning when you've done all the science bits. If, to use the same example, you want to understand why things fall to the ground, you can make up some model like curved spacetime. But it doesn't follow from the fact that the mathematics does what you want it to that the model it is based on is a fact, unless of course you choose to define 'fact' that way.

So broadly speaking, in science there is observation, measurement, mathematical modelling and if you fancy it, philosophical modelling. Any or all of which you can call 'facts'.

What are the 'moral facts' about abortion? Or eating meat? Euthanasia, assassination, demanding that people wear face masks?
The empirical evidence is quite clearly that people have radically different views. The only thing analogous to dropped things falling, which everyone can see, is that there are dead bodies involved.

That is why you are ignorant of what is morality-proper.

The issues related to "abortion? Or eating meat? Euthanasia, assassination, demanding that people wear face masks" is not within Morality-proper, they are related to Ethics, i.e. the APPLIED aspects of Rights or Wrongs in human actions.

As with all fields of basic knowledge, there is the PURE and APPLIED aspects, as in Mathematics, Geometry, Science, Economics, etc., thus including the knowledge field of 'What are Right and Wrong Actions'.

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.

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.].

These PURE generic principles/facts are relied upon to apply in the APPLIED aspects and put into practices -generating other theories or applied in technology, medicine, and other fields of knowledge.
As such it the same with PURE Moral principles or facts which are then APPLIED in ethical practices.

One of the earliest moral fact in term of general principles of morality [PURE] is the Golden Rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
Simon Blackburn also states that the Golden Rule can be "found in some form in almost every ethical tradition".[6] - wiki

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].

However, the Golden Rule whilst is generated from the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics, it is not well justified with empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning. Perhaps it is taken for granted, but nevertheless this principle is testable.

However there are many other moral principles as facts which can be abstracted with greater justifications based on empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning. Note this OP
What is Fact - thus Moral Fact.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

Note what is Fact comes in degrees of justifications thus degrees of veracity.

One of the many other moral principles is the relative moral fact,
'No human ought to kill another human*' *including before birth.

There are many ways to justify the above moral fact - I won't go into the details.
One of the justification is, there is no evidence, any normal human being would volunteer to be killed by another human even by oneself.
Thus what we have is a relatively Justified True Moral Belief, i.e. a moral fact.

Then this Moral [PURE] fact is to be used as a GUIDE only for practical ethics.
In practical ethics, deviations are allowed where it is justified but it is always controlled against the moral fact.

In the case of abortion;
In terms of the PURE Moral Principle,
'No human ought to kill another human*' *including before birth,
abortion is NOT permissible under any deliberate situations.
This moral maxims is not to be enforced on individuals but used only a GUIDE and controlling element.

But in Ethics [APPLIED and practical] deviations are allowed from the PURE Moral fact but only within justified situations but it is always controlled against the fixed moral fact within the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Being humans and fallible, abortions will be inevitable will be necessary in reality and it is up the Ethics in contrasting with Moral objectives to motivate the establishing of preventive strategies to reduce abortion in the right path of continuous improvements toward the ideal [impossible ].

The above is applicable to explain morality and ethics in terms of "eating meat? Euthanasia, assassination, demanding that people wear face masks?"
Note the degrees of moral criticalness in the above, e.g. 'eating meat,' petty crimes cannot be as serious a murder, genocides, and the likes.