FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 11:41 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 11:21 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 10:49 am
........
That's all there is to the matter. I have now explained what Boyd was saying in the passage you took to be describing an argument that I am lacking cognitive function. We now can see that mine is not the cognitive function that we ought to be questioning.
I cannot see your point clearly if you do not stick to the para concern, i.e.
If you could read properly that wouldn't be a problem. I don't know how to dumb this down for your level of comprehension so you will just have to try harder.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 11:21 am
Cognitive Deficit to Morality – Lack Empathy
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. [Boyd did not agree with this but proposed his own version below]
this is the starting point;
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 above refer to moral skeptics like you 'whom moral judgments are motivationally indifferent' .. and have have some sort of cognitive deficit with respect to moral reasoning as well.
You have no basis for asserting that I am motivationally indifferent to moral judgments. All of the possible evidence is that I am not indifferent to such things at all. You also have no text supporting that absurd claim. It is not my fault that you cannot read.
Further to this ....
and you really need to pay attention to what I am writing here .... I have already pointed out that Boyd refers to moral antirealists such as I as having a tendency to explain exactly that sort of motivation as a n
ecessary connection between moral judgments and reasons for action. This shows that he agrees that I am a moral being who makes moral judgments and is motivated to action by them. I have likewise given you a description of that sort of model in the form of the Belief Desire Model (aka the a priori principle of interpretation) which covers that exact ground.
Look at the words "psychologically atypical" that you blithely skip over in that sentence by the way. What makes you think all of the people who stand against you in this matter are psychologically atypical. And really, given that you are the guy who put the Quran into a spreadsheet and has how many folders full of philosophical papers you haven't read?.... what on Earth makes you think that you are the guy to call me psychologically atypical in this matter?
Here is a video of somebody who is actually
unmotivated by moral judgment. She has just killed two people with her car and wants to know when she will get that car back so she can go to school tomorrow. That is what Boyd is talking about.
It is very important that you don't say that me and Pete and Sculptor are just like her. You would never come back from that.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 11:21 am
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.
It is such people like you who suffer a cognitive deficit in general. [A]
I am not a person for whom
questions of Moral goodness are irrelevant to how they would choose to act. You have no evidence that I am, you just keep asserting it anyway.
There is a problem with you that is becoming apparent. I described it to bahman as a lack of theory of mind
[think psychology KFC rather than philosophical ToM] a while ago when he was in conversation with you about something. Your view of what other people's minds are likely to contain is severely inadequate. You assign to others a random jumble of nonsensical thoughts or else you just assume we all believe the same thing you do.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 11:21 am
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 anti-realist has their own interpretation for [A] but Boyd has his own interpretations on why you suffer a cognitive deficit from his "naturalistic conception of moral knowledge" a deficit in the capacity to make moral judgments somewhat akin to a perceptual deficit.
Boyd went on to give more details to support his argument which include why people like you are not able to cognize moral facts.
What I have in mind is the application of a causal theory of moral knowledge to the examination of a feature of moral reasoning which has been well understood in the empiricist tradition since Hume, that is, the role of sympathy [empathy] in moral understanding.
boyd absolutely does not have "his own interpretations on why [..I] suffer a cognitive deficit". I have already explained a perfectly common sense rationalie for why no prefessional philosopher who wants to work again any time in their lifge would ever write such a scandalous argument as the one you ascribe to him.
That this conversation is still ongoing without you making any progress towards sanity is quite disturbing.
[Boyd]
"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."
Boyd was not referring to those whose moral functions are damaged as in psychopaths and others who are evil.
As a Moral Realist he was targeting the moral-antirealists [those who deny there are moral facts], not the 1% of psychopaths and the like [e.g. in that video].
I took into account the whole of S4.7, note this;
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.
Such a person would have to be deficient in sympathy [empathy], because the motivational role of sympathy [empathy] is precisely to make moral facts motivationally relevant.
In consequence, she or he would be deficient with respect to a cognitive capacity (sympathy [empathy]) which is ordinarily important for the correct assessment of moral facts.
The motivational deficiency would, as a matter of contingent fact about human psychology, be a cognitive deficiency as well.
When Boyd mentioned 'moral facts' it is with reference to his beliefs there are moral facts.
But to the
morally unconcerned person, like you [as a moral skeptic] do not accept there are moral facts, thus motivationally irrelevant.
You do not have the cognitive capacity for real morality, you have a moral compass, thus has a cognitive [perceptual] moral deficit.
When Boyd mentioned 'moral reasoning' he is talking about those who can do real moral reasoning and not referring to the
morally unconcerned person like you as a moral skeptic.
You talk about morality [metaethically] a lot in this discussion but you as a moral skeptic do not adopt any beliefs in the context of actual morality.
Note I have argued ALL humans are embedded with an inherent moral function and potential.
But as a moral skeptic, your inherent moral function has failed to activate or is very weak for some reason [..I am not implying you are a psychopath or the moral function is damaged].
This is why I believe you are a
morally unconcerned person in your psyche thus unable to cognize or perceive the actual inherent moral function within you.
The fact is the inherent moral function is a later evolutionary adaption to modulate the 'oughtness to kill' for food from turning toward humans.
As such this moral function is unfolding very slowly relative to evolutionary time, this is why the majority of people are weak in their moral competences impulses.
As a moral skeptic you are at the 5% percentile of those who are weak in morality [no moral competence].
If you have any sense of right or wrong, that is related to customs, social, legal, politics, crimes, which are independent from
morality-proper.