Moral Fact Deniers Has Cognitive Deficit in Morality

[FlashDangerpants]

He's not talking about moral facts, he's talking about possible facts about morals: where they come from, tendenices toward some we might have more often statictically than others.

Those are things that might happen if VA was interested in learning first and subsequently theorising based on that learning. But he is not doing that. VA is like a child in a sandpit telling you to play the game according to the rules he is inventing on the fly. That's what all the '-proper' stuff is for.

[Skepdick]

Those are things that might happen if VA was interested in learning first and subsequently theorising based on that learning. But he is not doing that. VA is like a child in a sandpit telling you to play the game according to the rules he is inventing on the fly. That's what all the '-proper' stuff is for.

Whether you play the game according to "rules invented on the fly"; or "rules invented in some unspecified-but-acceptable manner" you still appear committed to the game of "inventing rules and playing by them".

Fucking closet normativist. You want to shit over his arguments, but you don't want your normative framework for appraising arguments to be shat upon.

Why can't I redefine the rules of the language game? Am I not allowed to; or something?

[Peter Holmes]

No need to shit over a shit argument. Just have to point out that it's shit. Like all the arguments for moral objectivism. Not that the faithful will ever change their minds. They just like shit.

[FlashDangerpants]

Why can't I redefine the rules of the language game? Am I not allowed to; or something?

I don't think you understand the term.

[Iwannaplato]

He's not talking about moral facts, he's talking about possible facts about morals: where they come from, tendenices toward some we might have more often statictically than others.

Those are things that might happen if VA was interested in learning first and subsequently theorising based on that learning. But he is not doing that. VA is like a child in a sandpit telling you to play the game according to the rules he is inventing on the fly. That's what all the '-proper' stuff is for.

I think he is presuming what is moral and doesn't notice that when he finds it (in mirror neurons), it seems objective. Whereas what he notices and calls moral potential in his brain is categorized as this by him because he is presuming what is moral.

So, he thinks the first step is the mirror neurons, which are objective, and that he is merely building outward from potentials in the brain. Rather than selecting a part of the brain because it's potentials match his values. And he is not selecting other parts of the brain and letting them be the base of what could very well be quite opposed morals based on their potential potentials.

And empathy is pretty appealing to most people who get down to talking about what moral qualities we should develop, so universality (and the dreamy whiffs of the this-is-objective quale) are embedded in every second of post writing and mulling.

IOW he isn't quite noticing his own starting point. He puts the starting point later in the process, with objective research. So, he thinks his foundation is objective. What he includes is objective, but it's not the foundation nor is it's selection.

[Skepdick]

Why can't I redefine the rules of the language game? Am I not allowed to; or something?

I don't think you understand the term.

That's the "words have objective meaning" gambit...

But please! Go ahead and tell us why the philosophical use and understanding of that term is the "correct" one. Tell us why alternative uses and understandings of the term are "incorrect".

It's almost as if you are peddling some normative framework...

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here's ChatGpt's [with reservation] view on the above issue.

I posted the whole of Section 4.7 from Boyd's Chapter to ChatGpt for its interpretations, which I was not too sure of its conclusion.

So I posted additional questions:

From the above "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."

Can I interpret the "morally unconcerned person" as the antirealist, i.e. those who are moral nihilists and those who deny moral facts exist?

ChatGPT
Yes, your interpretation is correct.
In the context provided, the term "morally unconcerned person" refers to individuals who are indifferent or unmotivated by moral judgments, and the author suggests that these individuals likely have a cognitive deficit with respect to moral reasoning.
This aligns with the perspective of moral anti-realists, including moral nihilists or those who deny the existence of moral facts.
The idea is that individuals who reject the reality of moral facts may be, according to the author's argument, lacking in certain cognitive capacities related to moral reasoning, particularly a deficiency in empathy or sympathy.

The above agree with my point in the OP;
moral-fact-denier has some sort of cognitive [perceptual] deficit in respect to this particular issue.
It is only specific to this issue, I am not asserting moral-fact-deniers are psychopaths.

It is a matter of degrees in the cognitive deficit re morality.
If the psychopath's degree of deficit in moral cognitive_ness is taken 100/100,
then the typical non-psychopaths will range from 90/100 [moral nihilist] or moral subjectivists [80/100] and so on.

[Atla]

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I want to highlight this point re my OP.

"The above agree with my point in the OP;
moral-fact-denier has some sort of cognitive [perceptual] deficit in respect to this particular issue re Morality.
It is only specific to this issue, I am not asserting moral-fact-deniers are psychopaths."

Psychopaths do not mean they are evil prone absolutely, there are malignant and benign psychopaths; the latter are do not commit evil readily and have contributed greatly to humanity.

Also, NOT ALL those who have the above moral cognitive deficit will commit evil but SOME likely to commit evil [especially the moral nihilists] and the moral relativists are indifferent [morally] to the moral/immorality of others.

[Atla]

I want to highlight this point re my OP.

"The above agree with my point in the OP;
moral-fact-denier has some sort of cognitive [perceptual] deficit in respect to this particular issue re Morality.
It is only specific to this issue, I am not asserting moral-fact-deniers are psychopaths."

Psychopaths do not mean they are evil prone absolutely, there are malignant and benign psychopaths; the latter are do not commit evil readily and have contributed greatly to humanity.

Also, NOT ALL those who have the above moral cognitive deficit will commit evil but SOME likely to commit evil [especially the moral nihilists] and the moral relativists are indifferent [morally] to the moral/immorality of others.

Maybe you're a psychopath. Many subjectivists are MORE morally concerned than your average objectivist, for obvious reasons.

[Iwannaplato]

I want to highlight this point re my OP.

"The above agree with my point in the OP;
moral-fact-denier has some sort of cognitive [perceptual] deficit in respect to this particular issue re Morality.
It is only specific to this issue, I am not asserting moral-fact-deniers are psychopaths."

Psychopaths do not mean they are evil prone absolutely,

Right, it's barely an insult (based on no empirical evidence whatsoever. Must be using the theology FSK here, and the word 'evil' is a tell)

there are malignant and benign psychopaths; the latter are do not commit evil readily and have contributed greatly to humanity.

It's like a 50/50 compliment/diss, so no one should complain that it is merely founded on VA's intuition. I can't wait for the decimal placed numbers to appear explaining the statistics of psychopathy in moral fact deniers.

I really don't know why scientists spend so much money on laboratories and research.

Also, NOT ALL those who have the above moral cognitive deficit will commit evil but SOME likely to commit evil [especially the moral nihilists] and the moral relativists are indifferent [morally] to the moral/immorality of others.

But not the behavior of others and they have as much chance of having well ordered mirror neurons as anyone else. And no rules telling them that blacks or Jews aren't people or that God told them X was theirs or that those who suffer have bad Karma
nor do they tend to call people evil like formerly religious now secular moral objectivist still manage to do
as if evaluating the freshness of bananas. That bligthly.

But does this mean that moral objectivists MUST just make up stuff with no evidence. No. Many avoid this.
But does this mean that moral objectivists MUST accuse people who disagree with them of being more likely to be violent or otherwise more likely to be evil or go ad hom in a variety of ways whenever they meet disagreement, usually just aiming it generally, before getting into scuffles than directly at individuals, after. No, many avoid this.

The my-intuition-gets-to-make-up-numbers-and-categorize-other-people-as-likely-to-be-evil-without-evidence FSK is working well.

It's amazing how little knowledge there seems to be regarding what that kind of FSK can lead to. So the user of that FSK can actually use the word evil, without having their own memories jogged.

[Flannel Jesus]

Another stupid thread title and terrible argument in the op. I think he's just making these threads as a way to give himself plausible deniability to ad-hom Peter Holmes.

[FlashDangerpants]

Here's ChatGpt's [with reservation] view on the above issue.

I posted the whole of Section 4.7 from Boyd's Chapter to ChatGpt for its interpretations, which I was not too sure of its conclusion.

So I posted additional questions:

From the above "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."

Can I interpret the "morally unconcerned person" as the antirealist, i.e. those who are moral nihilists and those who deny moral facts exist?

ChatGPT
Yes, your interpretation is correct.
In the context provided, the term "morally unconcerned person" refers to individuals who are indifferent or unmotivated by moral judgments, and the author suggests that these individuals likely have a cognitive deficit with respect to moral reasoning.
This aligns with the perspective of moral anti-realists, including moral nihilists or those who deny the existence of moral facts.
The idea is that individuals who reject the reality of moral facts may be, according to the author's argument, lacking in certain cognitive capacities related to moral reasoning, particularly a deficiency in empathy or sympathy.

The above agree with my point in the OP;
moral-fact-denier has some sort of cognitive [perceptual] deficit in respect to this particular issue.
It is only specific to this issue, I am not asserting moral-fact-deniers are psychopaths.

It is a matter of degrees in the cognitive deficit re morality.
If the psychopath's degree of deficit in moral cognitive_ness is taken 100/100,
then the typical non-psychopaths will range from 90/100 [moral nihilist] or moral subjectivists [80/100] and so on.

Now you really are an idiot.

The paper doesn't make the argument you describe. If you cannot tell that after reading it 20 times you just can't read very well. ChatGPT is not an analytic tool it is a prediction engine for generating bits of text it expects you to like. Only an idiot wold con a computer into telling him an obvious untruth so he can spread it around.

[FlashDangerpants]

Another stupid thread title and terrible argument in the op. I think he's just making these threads as a way to give himself plausible deniability to ad-hom Peter Holmes.

My concern is that he authored this OP over 3 years ago. Bringing the matter back up was a test of his progress. Briefly I thought he might have made some, but he's doubled down instead.

[Flannel Jesus]

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.