Moral Fact Deniers Has Cognitive Deficit in Morality

[Veritas Aequitas]

I understand meta-ethics is the study of theories and terms of ethics in a balanced and unbiased manner.

However, in this case you are biased and hold strongly to various views which imply you hold such personal beliefs, i.e. you personally denial and do not accept there are moral facts.
So you have a cognitive deficit in morality.

Are you serious?

About what?

You as a moral skeptic have been denying there are moral facts or anything thing that is within the definition of what is 'morality'.

That in itself might be a problem, because we are in danger of agreeing on some stuff and I am a moral skeptic of some sort....
viewtopic.php?p=559314#p559314

I have reread Chapter 9 of the book and I suggest you reread Chapter 9 of the book;
especially section 4.7. Morality, motivation, and rationality which is relevant to the OP.

Show me where I am wrong in the charge that you [morally indifferent] have a moral deficit as in the OP?

The emphasis of the OP is with reference specifically to b]4.7. Morality, motivation, and rationality[/b] which I agree to the point.

Just in case, I have never claimed to agree with Boyd's view totally in his version of Moral Realism.
My version of Moral Realism or Moral Objectivity is totally different from Boyd's.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

An example of a moral fact is, "slavery is absolutely immoral and no human ought to enslave [own] another human".

Not according to Aristotle.
Why is slavery wrong?

Slavery had happened and still exists in some forms.
My emphasis here is with reference with chattel slavery where a human person is commercially own and can be traded like any goods.

Do you think Aristotle would voluntarily have agreed to be enslaved as a chattel?
Would you voluntarily accept to be enslaved as a chattel?
Would any normal person accept voluntarily be enslaved as a chattel?
Show me evidence where normal persons had accepted voluntarily [unconditionally] to be owned [enslaved] as a chattel by another human?

Of all normal humans, nobody would be wrong if they answer 'No' to the above
Only a pervert would answer yes to the above.

Thus by induction just like any scientific facts,
"no humans will volunteer to be enslaved and own as a chattel' is in chatttel slavery,
since this is universal and accepted by all, it is an objective fact, i.e. intersubjective.
within a moral framework and system,
'enslavement of a human is immoral' is an objective moral fact.

[FlashDangerpants]

I understand meta-ethics is the study of theories and terms of ethics in a balanced and unbiased manner.

However, in this case you are biased and hold strongly to various views which imply you hold such personal beliefs, i.e. you personally denial and do not accept there are moral facts.
So you have a cognitive deficit in morality.

Are you serious?

About what?

You as a moral skeptic have been denying there are moral facts or anything thing that is within the definition of what is 'morality'.

That in itself might be a problem, because we are in danger of agreeing on some stuff and I am a moral skeptic of some sort....
viewtopic.php?p=559314#p559314

I have reread Chapter 9 of the book and I suggest you reread Chapter 9 of the book;
especially section 4.7. Morality, motivation, and rationality which is relevant to the OP.

Show me where I am wrong in the charge that you [morally indifferent] have a moral deficit as in the OP?

The emphasis of the OP is with reference specifically to b]4.7. Morality, motivation, and rationality[/b] which I agree to the point.

Just in case, I have never claimed to agree with Boyd's view totally in his version of Moral Realism.
My version of Moral Realism or Moral Objectivity is totally different from Boyd's.

The question has so far been whether you are able to read at an adequate level to even understand what other people are writing. You are doing horribly. Do you still attribute to Boyd an argument that Sculptor and Pete and myself are morally indifferent and brain damaged, or have you freed him of that burden only to take it upon yourself?

You are fantasising that moral skepticism involves lack of moral feeling. All it does is say that moral feelings are not part of any universal web of truths and that we have choices to make about what to believe rather than observations to make about what to percieve. That we are even having a conversation about this after you have spent a round a decade claiming to be an expert on moral philosophy is very alarming. You are doing even worse than I thought.

You are completely shit at this stuff. All of it. You can't read, and you don't know even the most basic entry level stuff about what is being debated. I know what Boyd's take on realism is, I don't need you to tell me it is different from yours. I can read.

[Atla]

Are you serious?

About what?

You as a moral skeptic have been denying there are moral facts or anything thing that is within the definition of what is 'morality'.

That in itself might be a problem, because we are in danger of agreeing on some stuff and I am a moral skeptic of some sort....
viewtopic.php?p=559314#p559314

I have reread Chapter 9 of the book and I suggest you reread Chapter 9 of the book;
especially section 4.7. Morality, motivation, and rationality which is relevant to the OP.

Show me where I am wrong in the charge that you [morally indifferent] have a moral deficit as in the OP?

The emphasis of the OP is with reference specifically to b]4.7. Morality, motivation, and rationality[/b] which I agree to the point.

Just in case, I have never claimed to agree with Boyd's view totally in his version of Moral Realism.
My version of Moral Realism or Moral Objectivity is totally different from Boyd's.

The question has so far been whether you are able to read at an adequate level to even understand what other people are writing. You are doing horribly. Do you still attribute to Boyd an argument that Sculptor and Pete and myself are morally indifferent and brain damaged, or have you freed him of that burden only to take it upon yourself?

You are fantasising that moral skepticism involves lack of moral feeling. All it does is say that moral feelings are not part of any universal web of truths and that we have choices to make about what to believe rather than observations to make about what to percieve. That we are even having a conversation about this after you have spent a round a decade claiming to be an expert on moral philosophy is very alarming. You are doing even worse than I thought.

You are completely shit at this stuff. All of it. You can't read, and you don't know even the most basic entry level stuff about what is being debated. I know what Boyd's take on realism is, I don't need you to tell me it is different from yours. I can read.

I'm optimistic that it will only take 10-20 more years of intense study for VA to arrive at a level of moral understanding, that the average adolescent automatically reaches. Go VA!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are you serious?

About what?

You as a moral skeptic have been denying there are moral facts or anything thing that is within the definition of what is 'morality'.

That in itself might be a problem, because we are in danger of agreeing on some stuff and I am a moral skeptic of some sort....
viewtopic.php?p=559314#p559314

I have reread Chapter 9 of the book and I suggest you reread Chapter 9 of the book;
especially section 4.7. Morality, motivation, and rationality which is relevant to the OP.

Show me where I am wrong in the charge that you [morally indifferent] have a moral deficit as in the OP?

The emphasis of the OP is with reference specifically to b]4.7. Morality, motivation, and rationality[/b] which I agree to the point.

Just in case, I have never claimed to agree with Boyd's view totally in his version of Moral Realism.
My version of Moral Realism or Moral Objectivity is totally different from Boyd's.

The question has so far been whether you are able to read at an adequate level to even understand what other people are writing. You are doing horribly. Do you still attribute to Boyd an argument that Sculptor and Pete and myself are morally indifferent and brain damaged, or have you freed him of that burden only to take it upon yourself?

You are fantasising that moral skepticism involves lack of moral feeling. All it does is say that moral feelings are not part of any universal web of truths and that we have choices to make about what to believe rather than observations to make about what to percieve. That we are even having a conversation about this after you have spent a round a decade claiming to be an expert on moral philosophy is very alarming. You are doing even worse than I thought.

You are completely shit at this stuff. All of it. You can't read, and you don't know even the most basic entry level stuff about what is being debated. I know what Boyd's take on realism is, I don't need you to tell me it is different from yours. I can read.

Yes, you have a cognitive deficit in Morality as asserted in Boyd's S4.7.

You are a moral skeptic in your own words.

Moral skepticism (or moral scepticism in British English) is a class of meta-ethical theories all members of which entail that no one has any moral knowledge.
Many moral skeptics also make the stronger, modal claim that moral knowledge is impossible.
Moral skepticism is particularly opposed to moral realism: the view that there are knowable and objective moral truths.

This OP refer to Moral Facts Deniers as with you, Peter, sculptor and the like who has a cognitive deficit in morality in acknowledging moral facts exist.

If you any feelings of right or wrong, that has nothing to do with morality but perhaps social, political, legal, right or wrong.

Show me where I am wrong re Boyd's S4.7?

[FlashDangerpants]

Show me where I am wrong re Boyd's S4.7?

Already did that. I highlighted the words you quoted in the OP in the photo below.
Now just read the sentence that I underlined following it.
That proves that you have been wrong about the contents of the essay all along.

This is the actual text from which VA spawned this thread...



Nobody should need any AI tool to help them see that VA has completely misunderstood it. You don't need to know what the homeostatic consequentialism thing means (that is the topic of the actual paper which nobody really cares about). #what these couple of paragraphs cover is the link between moral beliefs and our actions, which is something I covered under the heading of BDM (belief desire motivation) recently.

He is describing a difference of opinion between himself and moral anti-realists over how to describe what is happening if somebody doesn't draw the expected motivation from their moral beliefs. The anti-realist puts this down to a failure to link beliefs to action in the normal way, Boyd is saying that the person's ability to percieve moral properties is in some manner occluded.

The author absolutely is not saying that philosophers with whom he disagrees voer the matter of realism are cognitively impaired. Nor would any sane or competent person even imagine for a second that such an argument would get published. Anywhere. It shouldn't even have happened in this mediocre forum.

VA just can't read.

A very major part of what has gone wrong here is that you never learned the basics of the debate about morality. All this time, you never have understood what is being discussed by persons adequate to the task of discussing such matters.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Show me where I am wrong re Boyd's S4.7?

Already did that. I highlighted the words you quoted in the OP in the photo below.
Now just read the sentence that I underlined following it.
That proves that you have been wrong about the contents of the essay all along.

This is the actual text from which VA spawned this thread...



Nobody should need any AI tool to help them see that VA has completely misunderstood it. You don't need to know what the homeostatic consequentialism thing means (that is the topic of the actual paper which nobody really cares about). #what these couple of paragraphs cover is the link between moral beliefs and our actions, which is something I covered under the heading of BDM (belief desire motivation) recently.

He is describing a difference of opinion between himself and moral anti-realists over how to describe what is happening if somebody doesn't draw the expected motivation from their moral beliefs. The anti-realist puts this down to a failure to link beliefs to action in the normal way, Boyd is saying that the person's ability to percieve moral properties is in some manner occluded.

The author absolutely is not saying that philosophers with whom he disagrees voer the matter of realism are cognitively impaired. Nor would any sane or competent person even imagine for a second that such an argument would get published. Anywhere. It shouldn't even have happened in this mediocre forum.

VA just can't read.

A very major part of what has gone wrong here is that you never learned the basics of the debate about morality. All this time, you never have understood what is being discussed by persons adequate to the task of discussing such matters.

Don't be so arrogant.

In the above you missed out critical passages.
I have presented the whole S4.7 for a thorough scrutiny in here
viewtopic.php?t=41991
plus AI's view on the critical passages.

[FlashDangerpants]

Show me where I am wrong re Boyd's S4.7?

Already did that. I highlighted the words you quoted in the OP in the photo below.
Now just read the sentence that I underlined following it.
That proves that you have been wrong about the contents of the essay all along.

This is the actual text from which VA spawned this thread...



Nobody should need any AI tool to help them see that VA has completely misunderstood it. You don't need to know what the homeostatic consequentialism thing means (that is the topic of the actual paper which nobody really cares about). #what these couple of paragraphs cover is the link between moral beliefs and our actions, which is something I covered under the heading of BDM (belief desire motivation) recently.

He is describing a difference of opinion between himself and moral anti-realists over how to describe what is happening if somebody doesn't draw the expected motivation from their moral beliefs. The anti-realist puts this down to a failure to link beliefs to action in the normal way, Boyd is saying that the person's ability to percieve moral properties is in some manner occluded.

The author absolutely is not saying that philosophers with whom he disagrees voer the matter of realism are cognitively impaired. Nor would any sane or competent person even imagine for a second that such an argument would get published. Anywhere. It shouldn't even have happened in this mediocre forum.

VA just can't read.

A very major part of what has gone wrong here is that you never learned the basics of the debate about morality. All this time, you never have understood what is being discussed by persons adequate to the task of discussing such matters.

Don't be so arrogant.

In the above you missed out critical passages.
I have presented the whole S4.7 for a thorough scrutiny in here
viewtopic.php?t=41991
plus AI's view on the critical passages.

If the moral antirealist (me, Harbal, Sculptor, Pete) diagnoses the deficit in one way, and the moral reaslist diagnoses it another way, then both camps are diagnosing the thing. You can manage that much reading and understanding, yes?

You can also tell from the sentence that preceeds the highlighted section that the realist and the antirealist are diverging on the matter of how to explain moral motivation, yes?

So how do you think you get to the bit where the moral antirealist suddenly does not experience moral motivation? How do you pull that off without deliberately misreading? By being totally shit, that's how.

[Sculptor]

An example of a moral fact is, "slavery is absolutely immoral and no human ought to enslave [own] another human".

Not according to Aristotle.
Why is slavery wrong?

Slavery had happened and still exists in some forms.
My emphasis here is with reference with chattel slavery where a human person is commercially own and can be traded like any goods.

Do you think Aristotle would voluntarily have agreed to be enslaved as a chattel?

No because he knew that he was superior in mind he thought deserved to be enslaved.

Would you voluntarily accept to be enslaved as a chattel?
Would any normal person accept voluntarily be enslaved as a chattel?
Show me evidence where normal persons had accepted voluntarily [unconditionally] to be owned [enslaved] as a chattel by another human?

This is an empty line of questioning. To a degree we all accept that when we sign up for a job. The armed forces of the world are much the same- reuqiring a buy-out, or denial of freedom.
I submit that no one would ever want to be a slave, yet we all to some degree submit to authority.
You've yet to address my question.

Of all normal humans, nobody would be wrong if they answer 'No' to the above
Only a pervert would answer yes to the above.

No, That is your opinion. You do not get to say what is "normal". Are you saying that slavery is not wrong to people that are not normal?

Thus by induction just like any scientific facts,
"no humans will volunteer to be enslaved and own as a chattel' is in chatttel slavery,
since this is universal and accepted by all, it is an objective fact, i.e. intersubjective.
within a moral framework and system,
'enslavement of a human is immoral' is an objective moral fact.

Induction is not good enough to make a thing an objective truth. Indiction is about probability and the evidence remaining the same. Cultural differences mean that those things that you think are constant were not in ancient times.
There were cultural contexts where selling yourself or a family member into slavery was a good idea- often the best option for life.
So no you have not made your case that slavery is objectively wrong.
You and I can agree that slavery is wrong - in our opinions.
THe biggest flaw in your arguments is that you assume that if everyone (except the abnormal, subnormal) agrees that makes it an objective fact. This is simply not the case. FOr objectivity the case has to be made that a thing is true regardless of people's agreement.
THere is nothing to stop you making a moral code justified by principles of agreement, but you do not get to append the word objective on to any thing you call a "fact".
Let us consider the question. Does god exist? 100 years ago 99% would say yes, and those that did not were traduced as evil, heathen, savage, or in your words "NOT NORMAL". From this you are saying that god exists is an objective fact.
Are you willing to state that?

Now the arguement that slavery is morally justified has been made and agreed upon by all cultures until perhaps the last 300 years when it was brought into question. So common place was it that even Jesus has slaves to wash he feet and he said not one word against slavery though, you would think ,it being so ghastly that the baby Jesus would have had some harsh words against the practice.
Yet the trade in the "Christian" British Empire thrived until it was abolished as late as 1807. And the ownership of humans throughout the empire was legal until 1833.
It was generally agreed that slavery was of a benefit to those that were less capable of civilisation than white people.
By your measure rightness of the practice slavery was an objective moral fact. And it was not just the whites. Moulay Ismail is famous for using the Barbary "pirates" to collect slaves for him. He was thought to have a million such people under the yoke throughout his dynasty.
Slavery has been practiced since the ealiest times, and considered a just spoil of war. Spartans kept an entire population (helots) enslaved,.
We all agree that "might is right", and so by your measure the apartheid and enlavement of the helots was a morally justified objective fact.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Not according to Aristotle.
Why is slavery wrong?

Slavery had happened and still exists in some forms.
My emphasis here is with reference with chattel slavery where a human person is commercially own and can be traded like any goods.

Do you think Aristotle would voluntarily have agreed to be enslaved as a chattel?

No because he knew that he was superior in mind he thought deserved to be enslaved.

Would you voluntarily accept to be enslaved as a chattel?
Would any normal person accept voluntarily be enslaved as a chattel?
Show me evidence where normal persons had accepted voluntarily [unconditionally] to be owned [enslaved] as a chattel by another human?

This is an empty line of questioning. To a degree we all accept that when we sign up for a job. The armed forces of the world are much the same- reuqiring a buy-out, or denial of freedom.
I submit that no one would ever want to be a slave, yet we all to some degree submit to authority.
You've yet to address my question.

Strawman.
I argued re Chattel Slavery where humans are owned and traded like goods where there is absolutely no freedom as long as one is a chattel slave.
Submitting to authority in a job or army is not slavery.

You have not answered my question'
Show me evidence where normal persons had accepted voluntarily [unconditionally] to be owned [enslaved] as a chattel by another human as in Chattel Slavery?

Of all normal humans, nobody would be wrong if they answer 'No' to the above
Only a pervert would answer yes to the above.

No, That is your opinion. You do not get to say what is "normal". Are you saying that slavery is not wrong to people that are not normal?

I have argued, ALL humans has an inherent moral function within the brain and DNA, except in a few this moral function is damaged or weakened.
My point is, those [probably there are] who voluntarily accept to be chattel slaves are not normal. There is something wrong with their inherent moral function in their brain in being the odd ones from the >8 billion on earth.

Thus by induction just like any scientific facts,
"no humans will volunteer to be enslaved and own as a chattel' is in chatttel slavery,
since this is universal and accepted by all, it is an objective fact, i.e. intersubjective.
within a moral framework and system,
'enslavement of a human is immoral' is an objective moral fact.

Induction is not good enough to make a thing an objective truth. Indiction is about probability and the evidence remaining the same. Cultural differences mean that those things that you think are constant were not in ancient times.
There were cultural contexts where selling yourself or a family member into slavery was a good idea- often the best option for life.
So no you have not made your case that slavery is objectively wrong.

Scientific facts claimed to be objective are based on induction.
You deny scientific facts are objective?

You and I can agree that slavery is wrong - in our opinions.
THe biggest flaw in your arguments is that you assume that if everyone (except the abnormal, subnormal) agrees that makes it an objective fact. This is simply not the case. FOr objectivity the case has to be made that a thing is true regardless of people's agreement.
THere is nothing to stop you making a moral code justified by principles of agreement, but you do not get to append the word objective on to any thing you call a "fact".
Let us consider the question. Does god exist? 100 years ago 99% would say yes, and those that did not were traduced as evil, heathen, savage, or in your words "NOT NORMAL". From this you are saying that god exists is an objective fact.
Are you willing to state that?

I have argued;
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
Yours is in the illusory sense [mind independence regardless of humans], while mine is in the realistic sense.
In my sense of reality, yes the claim 'God exist' is an objective fact but with negligible degrees of objectivity [0.01%] in contrast to science the gold standard [indexed 99%].

Now the arguement that slavery is morally justified has been made and agreed upon by all cultures until perhaps the last 300 years when it was brought into question. So common place was it that even Jesus has slaves to wash he feet and he said not one word against slavery though, you would think ,it being so ghastly that the baby Jesus would have had some harsh words against the practice.
Yet the trade in the "Christian" British Empire thrived until it was abolished as late as 1807. And the ownership of humans throughout the empire was legal until 1833.
It was generally agreed that slavery was of a benefit to those that were less capable of civilisation than white people.
By your measure rightness of the practice slavery was an objective moral fact. And it was not just the whites. Moulay Ismail is famous for using the Barbary "pirates" to collect slaves for him. He was thought to have a million such people under the yoke throughout his dynasty.
Slavery has been practiced since the ealiest times, and considered a just spoil of war. Spartans kept an entire population (helots) enslaved,.
We all agree that "might is right", and so by your measure the apartheid and enslavement of the helots was a morally justified objective fact.

While there was and is chattel slavery throughout history and at present, it is inherent in all humans that being enslaved as a chattel slavery [which is inherently immoral] is never voluntarily accepted by any normal person.

'Apartheid' is an issue of racism and political, not morality nor ethics. I have not heard of people being enslaved as chattel slaves under apartheid.

By your measure rightness of the practice slavery was an objective moral fact. And it was not just the whites. Moulay Ismail is famous for using the Barbary "pirates" to collect slaves for him. He was thought to have a million such people under the yoke throughout his dynasty.

Strawman.
I stated 'the oughtnot_ness that no human is to be a chattel slave' is an objective moral fact conditioned upon a morality- FSRC.
As such, chattel slavery must be abolished and prevented at source.
That chattel-slavery is now banned [progressively over time] in all sovereign nations is a sign of the manifestation of the inherent objective moral fact potential within all humans.

The UN is striving to nudge and cajole all nations to ban all forms of slavery and this is motivated by the moral instincts inherent within all humans which is unfolding very slowly.
This is an objective moral fact because it is universally inherent in ALL humans coded with their DNA, albeit active in varying degrees in different people.

[FlashDangerpants]

Already did that. I highlighted the words you quoted in the OP in the photo below.
Now just read the sentence that I underlined following it.
That proves that you have been wrong about the contents of the essay all along.



A very major part of what has gone wrong here is that you never learned the basics of the debate about morality. All this time, you never have understood what is being discussed by persons adequate to the task of discussing such matters.

Don't be so arrogant.

In the above you missed out critical passages.
I have presented the whole S4.7 for a thorough scrutiny in here
viewtopic.php?t=41991
plus AI's view on the critical passages.

If the moral antirealist (me, Harbal, Sculptor, Pete) diagnoses the deficit in one way, and the moral reaslist diagnoses it another way, then both camps are diagnosing the thing. You can manage that much reading and understanding, yes?

You can also tell from the sentence that preceeds the highlighted section that the realist and the antirealist are diverging on the matter of how to explain moral motivation, yes?

So how do you think you get to the bit where the moral antirealist suddenly does not experience moral motivation? How do you pull that off without deliberately misreading? By being totally shit, that's how.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Already did that. I highlighted the words you quoted in the OP in the photo below.
Now just read the sentence that I underlined following it.
That proves that you have been wrong about the contents of the essay all along.



A very major part of what has gone wrong here is that you never learned the basics of the debate about morality. All this time, you never have understood what is being discussed by persons adequate to the task of discussing such matters.

Don't be so arrogant.

In the above you missed out critical passages.
I have presented the whole S4.7 for a thorough scrutiny in here
viewtopic.php?t=41991
plus AI's view on the critical passages.

If the moral antirealist (me, Harbal, Sculptor, Pete) diagnoses the deficit in one way, and the moral reaslist diagnoses it another way, then both camps are diagnosing the thing. You can manage that much reading and understanding, yes?

You can also tell from the sentence that preceeds the highlighted section that the realist and the antirealist are diverging on the matter of how to explain moral motivation, yes?

So how do you think you get to the bit where the moral antirealist suddenly does not experience moral motivation? How do you pull that off without deliberately misreading? By being totally shit, that's how.

In this case 'moral judgments' does not imply you are making a moral judgment.
It simply means 'moral judgments' in general.
For example, the general moral judgment, 'no human ought to be enslaved as a chattel' as a moral fact would like a drop of water on a lotus leaf [or waxed paper], i.e. morally irrelevant to the moral skeptic or those [moral antirealists] who deny moral facts exist.

Boyd in the context of the chapter is writing from a moral realist who claimed that there are moral facts.
So those [you, peter, sculptor, harbal and the like] who deny moral facts exists as moral anti-moral-realists are in contra to Boyd's view.
So Boyd's overall critique is with reference to you, peter, sculptor, harbal and the like.

[FlashDangerpants]

Don't be so arrogant.

In the above you missed out critical passages.
I have presented the whole S4.7 for a thorough scrutiny in here
viewtopic.php?t=41991
plus AI's view on the critical passages.

If the moral antirealist (me, Harbal, Sculptor, Pete) diagnoses the deficit in one way, and the moral reaslist diagnoses it another way, then both camps are diagnosing the thing. You can manage that much reading and understanding, yes?

You can also tell from the sentence that preceeds the highlighted section that the realist and the antirealist are diverging on the matter of how to explain moral motivation, yes?

So how do you think you get to the bit where the moral antirealist suddenly does not experience moral motivation? How do you pull that off without deliberately misreading? By being totally shit, that's how.

In this case 'moral judgments' does not imply you are making a moral judgment.
It simply means 'moral judgments' in general.
For example, the general moral judgment, 'no human ought to be enslaved as a chattel' as a moral fact would like a drop of water on a lotus leaf [or waxed paper], i.e. morally irrelevant to the moral skeptic or those [moral antirealists] who deny moral facts exist.

Boyd in the context of the chapter is writing from a moral realist who claimed that there are moral facts.
So those [you, peter, sculptor, harbal and the like] who deny moral facts exists as moral anti-moral-realists are in contra to Boyd's view.
So Boyd's overall critique is with reference to you, peter, sculptor, harbal and the like.

That doesn't make any sense at all.