Moral Fact Deniers Has Cognitive Deficit in Morality

[Skepdick]

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

You now realise that you failed to read the paper properly and that the line quoted here is a lie?

Is he lying; or are you lying about him lying? The line is not a quote.

[FlashDangerpants]

NONE of this is relevant because VA is not a moral realist. VA is a moral objectivist which is an entirely different thing. And moral subjectivists, whom he has a beef with are NOT "indifferent" to morality.

He is definitely incapable of telling the difference between meta-ethical positions about the logical status of moral propositions and the content of one's moral beliefs. Which is problematic when he has been lecturing us all about meta-ethics for a decade and he doesn't even know how to recognise it.

[Skepdick]

NONE of this is relevant because VA is not a moral realist. VA is a moral objectivist which is an entirely different thing. And moral subjectivists, whom he has a beef with are NOT "indifferent" to morality.

He is definitely incapable of telling the difference between meta-ethical positions about the logical status of moral propositions and the content of one's moral beliefs. Which is problematic when he has been lecturing us all about meta-ethics for a decade and he doesn't even know how to recognise it.

There is absolutely no difference between the two from a teleological stance, bozo.

If the nett effect of your meta-ethical position undermines the objectives of ethics then your meta-ethic is unethical.
If the content of your meta-ethical beliefs undermines the content of your moral beliefs then your meta-ethic is immoral.

Morality is objective because morality is the objective.

If morality is unattainable in practice then I guess I can go enslave me some poor people.

[Sculptor]

And moral subjectivists, whom he has a beef with are NOT "indifferent" to morality.

Well if you aren't indifferent then why can't you tell us what's wrong with saying that morality is objective ?!?

If there's nothing wrong with saying it then great!
If something's wrong with saying it, but it's just your opinion - why should anyone care?

For thousandss of years moral objectivists demanded that slavery was good.
Tell me if they were wrong.

[Skepdick]

For thousandss of years moral objectivists demanded that slavery was good.
Tell me if they were wrong.

Well lets ask your team!

Hey moral subjectivists, Is slavery objectively wrong?
Moral subjectivists: No.

Your moral high horse is dead!

[Sculptor]

For thousandss of years moral objectivists demanded that slavery was good.
Tell me if they were wrong.

Well lets ask your team!

Hey moral subjectivists, Is slavery objectively wrong?
Moral subjectivists: No.

Your moral high horse is dead!

Wrong slavery is wrong.
You are flogging your own dead horse.

Explain how just 200 years ago slavery was morally just. Where the founding fathers moral subjectivists?

[Skepdick]

Wrong slavery is wrong.
You are flogging your own dead horse.

It's definitely not my horse. Don't worry - you'll take ownership of it eventually.

Explain how just 200 years ago slavery was morally just. Where the founding fathers moral subjectivists?

Easy! They were objectively wrong to justify it!

Now you try to explain it in subjective moral terms.

Was slavery always wrong? Did it only become wrong in the last 200 years? Will it become right again in future?

If it's just a matter of sailing with the wind; if it's just a social fashion - why can't we make slavery right again? It's not like it's objectively wrong.

[Sculptor]

Wrong slavery is wrong.
You are flogging your own dead horse.

It's definitely not my horse. Don't worry - you'll take ownership of it eventually.

Explain how just 200 years ago slavery was morally just. Where the founding fathers moral subjectivists?

Easy! They were objectively wrong to justify it!

Now you try to explain it in subjective moral terms.

Was slavery always wrong? Did it only become wrong in the last 200 years? Will it become right again in future?

If it's just a matter of sailing with the wind; if it's just a social fashion - why can't we make slavery right again? It's not like it's objectively wrong.

Slavery was seen as morally just for thousands of years since the historical and cultural context was not the same as it is now.

Now explain to me why you think it is objectively wrong.

[Skepdick]

Slavery was seen as morally just for thousands of years since the historical and cultural context was not the same as it is now.

That doesn't answer the question. I asked you when slavery started being wrong.

Give me a date in history before which you believe slavery was NOT wrong?

[Sculptor]

Slavery was seen as morally just for thousands of years since the historical and cultural context was not the same as it is now.

That doesn't answer the question. I asked you when slavery started being wrong.

Give me a date in history before which you believe slavery was NOT wrong?

Prove to me that slavery is wrong!

[Skepdick]

Slavery was seen as morally just for thousands of years since the historical and cultural context was not the same as it is now.

That doesn't answer the question. I asked you when slavery started being wrong.

Give me a date in history before which you believe slavery was NOT wrong?

Prove to me that slavery is wrong!

I see! So in your world-view slavery is not wrong. It never was wrong and it never will be wrong.

[Sculptor]

That doesn't answer the question. I asked you when slavery started being wrong.

Give me a date in history before which you believe slavery was NOT wrong?

Prove to me that slavery is wrong!

I see! So in your world-view slavery is not wrong. It never was wrong and it never will be wrong.

No I did not say that.
I am asking you to prove it is wrong.
If it is objectively wrong then it ought to be easy for you.
So, give in your best shot!

Prove to me that slavery is wrong!

[Skepdick]

No I did not say that.
I am asking you to prove it is wrong.
If it is objectively wrong then it ought to be easy for you.
So, give in your best shot!

Prove to me that slavery is wrong!

What are you even asking, idiot?

Prove to me that this color is red.

If it's objectively true that this color is red it should be easy for you to prove it.

Demonstrate what a proof would entail and then I'll emulate.

[Sculptor]

No I did not say that.
I am asking you to prove it is wrong.
If it is objectively wrong then it ought to be easy for you.
So, give in your best shot!

Prove to me that slavery is wrong!

What are you even asking, idiot?

Colour is subjective too. Some people have different colour perception. Colour perception happens in the head.
But since this is something for which there can be strict phyical criteria we can make up objective measures and agree to call those "red".
Morals and not like that.


Stop avoiding the question.

If it is objectively wrong then it ought to be easy for you.
So, give in your best shot!

Prove to me that slavery is wrong!

[iambiguous]

Prove to me that slavery is wrong!

Or demonstrate that, starting with the assumption that we live in a No God universe, the Holocaust was wrong, the abuse of children is wrong and, that, in the absence of God, any and all behaviors can't be rationalized.

Me?

Sure, things like slavery and genocide and child abuse "come closest to upending my own 'fractured and fragmented' frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask 'can you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or slavery is not inherently, necessarily immoral?'

And, yes, the part of me that would never, could never imagine my own participation in things of this sort has a hard time accepting that, yes, in a No God world they are still behaviors able to be rationalized by others as either moral or, for the sociopaths, justified given their belief that everything revolves around their own "me, myself and I" self-gratification.

And what is the No God philosophical -- scientific? -- argument that establishes certain behaviors as in fact objectively right or objectively wrong? Isn't it true that philosophers down through the ages who did embrace one or another rendition of deontology always included one or another rendition of the transcending font -- God -- to back it all up?

For all I know, had my own life been different...for any number of reasons...I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.

After all, do not the pro-life folks insist that abortion itself is no less a Holocaust inflicted on the unborn? And do not the pro-choice folks rationalize this behavior with their own subjective sets of assumptions.

Though, okay, if someone here is convinced they have in fact discovered the optimal reason why we should behave one way and not any other, let's explore that in a No God world.

What would be argued when confronting the Adolph Hitlers and the Ted Bundys and the 9/11 religious fanatics and the sociopaths among us. Arguments such that they would be convinced that the behaviors they choose are indeed inherently, necessarily immoral.

How would you reason with them?"




"Moral realism is the view that there are mind-independent moral facts in the universe, and people can make statements about them that are true or false. For instance, a moral realist might claim that 'killing a defenseless person is wrong' is a fact in the same way that 'two plus two sums to four' is a fact."

Next up: the moral realists here among us note the objective facts about slavery that inherently, necessarily -- ontologically? teleologically? -- make it unequivocally immoral.