Moral Fact Deniers Has Cognitive Deficit in Morality

[Skepdick]

Prove to me that slavery is wrong!

Translated into colloquial English: I will automatically reject any and all sufficient proofs for the wrongness of slavery as a matter of principle; and for the sake of wasting your time. Even though I already believe that murder is wrong.

The difference between murdering a man human and stealing their time is only in degree, not in kind.

[Skepdick]

How would you reason with them?"[/b]

Never mind the fact that you can't reason with fanatics.

You can't even reason with the people who are supposed to stand up to the fanatics.

Idiots like Sculptor.
Idiots who want you to prove to them what they already accept as true.

It's almost as if they are running interference for the fanatics.

[Sculptor]

Prove to me that slavery is wrong!

Translated into colloquial English: I will automatically reject any and all sufficient proofs for the wrongness of slavery as a matter of principle; and for the sake of wasting your time. Even though I already believe that murder is wrong.

The difference between murdering a man human and stealing their time is only in degree, not in kind.

You lillylivered twar.

Murder is wrong by definition; illegal killing. But even I can think of instances where murder would be the right thing to do. Even a slow thinker like you might think of one.
But until you can prove that slavery is wrong you are going to have to join the ranks of the moral relativists.
You keep making assertions without the slightest reasoning.
I can think of instances where stealing would be right too.
Sometimes it can be the moral action to break the law. That's how things change. Ending slavery involved breaking the law.

Put your money where you big fat mouth is and tell me why slavery is objectively wrong. You simply cannot. Morals are based on opinions. WHilst most humans we all know are born into the same culture and historical context those opinions tend to collide into agreement. However agreement is not the same as objectivity.

So have a try. At least try to tell me why you "feel" that slavery is objectively wrong, or why you "think" that, if you cannot prove it, since I have asked you repatedly.

Philosphy is more than sniping fro the shadows as you seen to do. It's about thinking about why you think the way you think; challenging your own point of view; challenging your endemic assumptions. If you can't do that then you might as well find a different Forum.

[iambiguous]

How would you reason with them?"[/b]

Never mind the fact that you can't reason with fanatics.

Indeed. And hasn't that always been my point? After all, how are the moral fanatics really any different from the moral objectivists?

Don't any number of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...insist they and only they have access to the actual "moral facts" to be found in the world around us...facts pertaining to virtually every single issue that precipitates conflicting goods?

It's just that I can never seem to get those like Veritas Aequitas to take their own theoretical assessments over to the applied ethics board and then, in regard to particular issues like slavery or abortion or gun control, compare and contrast our respective moral philosophies.

[Skepdick]

How would you reason with them?"[/b]

Never mind the fact that you can't reason with fanatics.

Indeed. And hasn't that always been my point? After all, how are the moral fanatics really any different from the moral objectivists?

Don't any number of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...insist they and only they have access to the actual "moral facts" to be found in the world around us...facts pertaining to virtually every single issue that precipitates conflicting goods?

It's just that I can never seem to get those like Veritas Aequitas to take their own theoretical assessments over to the applied ethics board and then, in regard to particular issues like slavery or abortion or gun control, compare and contrast our respective moral philosophies.

That's a pretty fanatical conception of how applied ethics works in practice.

There is no board outside of academia....

[Skepdick]

Murder is wrong by definition; illegal killing

No shit, Sherlock!

Why is it defined as "wrong"?
Why isn't it defined as "right"?

If morality were subjective I'd expect a pretty even distribution between those two definitions across the various legal systems.
I'd even expect some legal systems to simply remain silent on the matter - lacking a definition of murder.

How is it that we have such consistency/convergence across 200+ global legal systems?

Is there a conspiracy?

But even I can think of instances where murder would be the right thing to do.

Two sentences and you already contradict yourself...

Right murder is like a true falsehood.

[Sculptor]

Murder is wrong by definition; illegal killing

No shit, Sherlock!

Why is it defined as "wrong"?
Why isn't it defined as "right"?

That's a question you cannot answer in exaclty the same way you cannot tell why slavery is also wrong.
SO why don't you try and tell me why you think slavery is wrong.

What are you scared of?
Are you scared that you are expressing an opinion which would make it subjective? Or do you actually have the uiversal criteria which would make it objective?

[Skepdick]

That's a question you cannot answer in exaclty the same way you cannot tell why slavery is also wrong.

I can answer it. I am answering it. Morality is objective and a priori any given definition.

Any particular definition is a consequence of objective moralizing.

SO why don't you try and tell me why you think slavery is wrong.

I did. Again.

The definition is the byproduct of objective moralizing.

What are you scared of?

The thing I fear most is your stupidity rubbing off on me.

Are you scared that you are expressing an opinion which would make it subjective? Or do you actually have the uiversal criteria which would make it objective?

This is the typical incoherent drivel from the moral subjectivists.

Is it a fact, or is it just your opinion that objective morality requires universal criteria?

[Sculptor]

Here is an interesting point from the following;

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

Since you have named me. Can you show me where I denied a "moral fact" - a phrase you have not even taken the trouble to define.

SO can you define "moral fact", and if you would be so kind give some examples of moral facts.

It might help if you would also point to some specific example of where myself (and others named), deny such a thing.

Thank you in advance.

[Sculptor]

This is the typical incoherent drivel from the moral subjectivists.

Is it a fact, or is it just your opinion that objective morality requires universal criteria?

Okay fine.

But can you prove to me that slavery is objectively wrong?

If you do not even try I am going to have to conclude that you are incapable of doing this, or that in fact assume that it cennot be done

[Skepdick]

Okay fine.

But can you prove to me that slavery is objectively wrong?

Of course I can.

I can prove it to you in exactly the same way I can prove to you that "Paris is the Capital of France" is an objective fact.

The factuality of both claims is justified in an equivalent fashion.

[Sculptor]

Okay fine.

But can you prove to me that slavery is objectively wrong?

Of course I can.

I can prove it to you in exactly the same way I can prove to you that "Paris is the Capital of France" is an objective fact.

The factuality of both claims is justified in an equivalent fashion.

I am so glad to hear that.
Please go ahead.

Why not just start by saying what makes it wrong.

[Skepdick]

I am so glad to hear that.
Please go ahead.

I did. Did you miss it?

Why not just start by saying what makes it wrong.

I did. Did you miss that too?

I can prove it to you in exactly the same way I can prove to you that "Paris is the Capital of France" is an objective fact.

The factuality of both claims is justified in an equivalent fashion.

For the slow kid in the classroom: that which makes slavery wrong is the exact same thing which makes Paris the capital of France.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

This OP was raised in 2020, so there would be a memory limitation.
When I deny I have read it 20 times, that is based on "off the cuff" on my present cognition of something that happened 4 years ago.

So "off the cuff" you accused me of lying?

However, on reviewing the file [.. I extracted that chapter 9 and saved it as a separate file] and judging by the amount of notes and summaries I did on that chapter 9, I would have read it at least 20 times especially when it was a serious issue.

Here again the relevant section:

What I have in mind is the very strong intuition which many philosophers share
that the person for whom moral judgments are motivationally indifferent would not only be psychologically atypical [not representative of a type, group, or class.] but would have some sort of cognitive deficit with respect to moral reasoning as well.
The anti-realist diagnoses this deficit as a failure to recognize a definitional or otherwise necessary connection between Moral goodness and reasons for action.

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.
I propose that the deficit is not—as the anti-realist would have it—a failure to recognize a necessary connection between moral judgments and reasons for action.
Instead, I suggest, if we adopt a naturalistic conception of moral knowledge we can diagnose in such people a deficit in the capacity to make moral judgments somewhat akin to a perceptual deficit.

The point then was I was against moral-antirealists like yourself and others of the like the person for whom moral judgments are motivationally indifferent. [i.e. moral facts deniers].
Worst, you are in addition a moral skeptic.
It is true there is a moral deficit, i.e. in terms of perceptual deficit in not being able to sense [perceive] the actual moral function existing within all humans and thus, yourself.

But that is a failure to read properly on your part. Scluptor and Pete and I are not persons who lack moral motivation, we are just people who explain morality in different terms to you. If you are an expert on meta-ethics you should understand this already. That you do not is hugely worrying and suggests that you have a problem understanding other people as real people at all.

A psychopath would be different from those who like you are indifferent to moral realism.
A psychopath moral network in the brain is damaged such that he does not have a possibility to unfold his existing inherent moral potential.
This is just like a person whose puberty potential is damaged thus his puberty is stopped, but his inherent potential is still there.

I still insist you [& your like] have a moral deficit, i.e. in terms of a perceptual deficit with a moral blindness to understand you have an inherent moral potential [element of moral realism] which needs to be developed and cultivated.

Well, if you still attribute this to Boyd, that just proves that you cannot read. The rest proves that you are no philosopher. And the furhter implication is that you have a problem with theory of mind [as per the psychological FSCK rather than the philosophical one].

[Skepdick]

Well, if you still attribute this to Boyd, that just proves that you cannot read. The rest proves that you are no philosopher. And the furhter implication is that you have a problem with theory of mind [as per the psychological FSCK rather than the philosophical one].

Apparently you have a problem with theory of philosophizing.
And an even more serious problem with theory of theorizing.

That proves that you are neither a philosopher nor a theorizer. As per the recursive FSCK.

I defer to Rorty: What is it that you are doing when you engage in the activity that you are busy engaging with?