FDP has a Cognitive Moral Deficit in Morality

[Skepdick]

You copy-pasted that line from your ChatGPT tab, didn't you.

Of course! I had to make sure it works before I recommend it to a salad-brain.

[Atla]

You copy-pasted that line from your ChatGPT tab, didn't you.

Of course! I had to make sure it works before I recommend it to a salad-brain.

So you admit having tested it on yourself, referring to yourself as "salad-brain". Okay.

[Skepdick]

You copy-pasted that line from your ChatGPT tab, didn't you.

Of course! I had to make sure it works before I recommend it to a salad-brain.

So you admit having tested it on yourself, referring to yourself as "salad-brain". Okay.

This is precisely the sort of confusion ChatGPT can help you with. Give it a try - beggars can't be choosers.

People with disabilities like yours were the target market...

[Atla]

Of course! I had to make sure it works before I recommend it to a salad-brain.

So you admit having tested it on yourself, referring to yourself as "salad-brain". Okay.

This is precisely the sort of confusion ChatGPT can help you with. Give it a try - beggars can't be choosers.

People with disabilities like yours were the target market...

word salad

[Flannel Jesus]

All these threads do is show a cognitive deficit in VA.

[Skepdick]

So you admit having tested it on yourself, referring to yourself as "salad-brain". Okay.

This is precisely the sort of confusion ChatGPT can help you with. Give it a try - beggars can't be choosers.

People with disabilities like yours were the target market...

word salad

[FlashDangerpants]

As per the definition of 'moral skepticism' FDP would thus be "morally unconcerned person" the person for whom moral facts are motivationally irrelevant, thus according to the article in OP and the summary above, suffers a cognitive [perceptual] moral deficit.

In addition, FDP is a moral fact denier, i.e. deny moral facts exist at all, while Boyd argued and indicated above, there are moral facts.

FDP keep insisting I have misinterpreted Boyd but he did not give sufficient justifications instead relied on some cherry picked sentences which are not significant to the issue plus picking other side issues.

FDP, I suggest you scrutinize every sentence of S4.7 and show me where I am wrong.

You are wrong for the simple and obvious reason that when Boyd describes a morally unconcerned person he is referring to somebody who does not take moral feelings, dispositions, rules or any other form of judgment into account. He is talking about people who don't think it matters whether what they do is right or wrong and do not base their decisions on such matters. Observation would be enough to show that I am not such a person and that it is offensive that you continue to insist that I am.

That is simply what "morally unconcerned" means in natural language. If Boyd were going to overwrite that with a technical definition of his own, there would be a paragraph explaining that. There is no such paragraph. That you claim to have scrtuinized so deeply but don't have enough experience in these matters after so many years to know to look for this shows that you have never read properly, not even once.

[Skepdick]

You are wrong for the simple and obvious reason that when Boyd describes a morally unconcerned person he is referring to somebody who does not take moral feelings, dispositions, rules or any other form of judgment into account. He is talking about people who don't think it matters whether what they do is right or wrong and do not base their decisions on such matters. Observation would be enough to show that I am not such a person and that it is offensive that you continue to insist that I am.

Observation is precisely how I've arrived at the conclusion that you are such a person.

You reject the existence of moral facts; so what exactly counts as " moral feelings, dispositions, rules or any other form of judgment into account."?
Can you help us contrast them with your immoral feelings, dispositions, rules and judgments?

If there are no moral facts is there even a difference; or is it just a matter of pinning the moral/immoral labels as a posteriori?

[Veritas Aequitas]

As per the definition of 'moral skepticism' FDP would thus be "morally unconcerned person" the person for whom moral facts are motivationally irrelevant, thus according to the article in OP and the summary above, suffers a cognitive [perceptual] moral deficit.

In addition, FDP is a moral fact denier, i.e. deny moral facts exist at all, while Boyd argued and indicated above, there are moral facts.

FDP keep insisting I have misinterpreted Boyd but he did not give sufficient justifications instead relied on some cherry picked sentences which are not significant to the issue plus picking other side issues.

FDP, I suggest you scrutinize every sentence of S4.7 and show me where I am wrong.

You are wrong for the simple and obvious reason that when Boyd describes a morally unconcerned person he is referring to somebody who does not take moral feelings, dispositions, rules or any other form of judgment into account. He is talking about people who don't think it matters whether what they do is right or wrong and do not base their decisions on such matters. Observation would be enough to show that I am not such a person and that it is offensive that you continue to insist that I am.

That is simply what "morally unconcerned" means in natural language. If Boyd were going to overwrite that with a technical definition of his own, there would be a paragraph explaining that. There is no such paragraph. That you claim to have scrtuinized so deeply but don't have enough experience in these matters after so many years to know to look for this shows that you have never read properly, not even once.

It is shameful when you are the one who could not understand Boyd's views and not me?

Based on OBSERVATIONS;

Here again the final sections of Boyd's S4.7 summarized why;
FDP has a Cognitive Moral Deficit in Morality

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.

You are the morally unconcerned person defined as above, i.e.
you deny moral facts,
so the question "moral facts are motivationally irrelevant" is irrelevant to you due to your indifference to moral facts and moral elements on a personal basis as a self-declared moral skeptic.

You may discuss the above moral elements on a metaethics basis, but you have a personal belief as a moral skeptic, thus moral elements and facts are irrelevant to you personally.

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.

As a morally unconcerned person as a moral skeptic on a personal basis, you don't recognize empathy as a moral fact, thus you are morally deficient in this sense.
You may recognize 'empathy' as a psychological element within the psychological FSRC, but it means nothing to you with a moral-FSRC [no such thing for you].

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.

Thus FDP as a self-declared Moral Skeptic has a deficient with respect to a cognitive capacity (sympathy [empathy]) which is ordinarily important for the correct assessment of moral facts.

Note the last paragraph alludes to psychological facts [psychological-FSRC], i.e. empathy being imputed into the moral FSRC.
This will be in line with W's principles of Framework and System as discussed in 'On Certainty'.

Based on your expectations, you should be the one apologizing to me for insulting my comprehensive skills. But from my perspective, I am not expecting such childish matters from an empty vessel.

[FlashDangerpants]

Based on your expectations, you should be the one apologizing to me for insulting my comprehensive skills. But from my perspective, I am not expecting such childish matters from an empty vessel.

This conversation has reached the end of what is possible and is going round in one of those boring circles you can endure forever, but I will not. It's useful life has ended. Any time I want to make a few particular points about your behaviour and attitude problems, I can link to this thread. Any time the point is whether you are capable of reading moderately complex philosophical essays, again this thread is the proof you cannot.

And if the question to be considered is about whether you as an individual show any signs of improvment after years of effort.... this thread suggests you do not improve at all and even after 4 years you cannot recognise your own mistakes when they are clearly spelled out for you. Same as you also failed to see the issues with your ragged old oughtness-to-breath argument and you still use that stupid impossiblity-to-be-real religious one. Unless there is a substantial change to your approach to philosophy, we can report that you actually peaked about 5 years ago and now you are just doing the same things but with AI to play Henry to your IC, or wizzy to your jacobi.

To take this any further in substance, we would have to raise issues that would send you into one of your epic sulks. So don't take this any further. I will link back to this thread when I want to make one of the above points, that's then end of the matter.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Based on your expectations, you should be the one apologizing to me for insulting my comprehensive skills. But from my perspective, I am not expecting such childish matters from an empty vessel.

This conversation has reached the end of what is possible and is going round in one of those boring circles you can endure forever, but I will not. It's useful life has ended. Any time I want to make a few particular points about your behaviour and attitude problems, I can link to this thread. Any time the point is whether you are capable of reading moderately complex philosophical essays, again this thread is the proof you cannot.

And if the question to be considered is about whether you as an individual show any signs of improvment after years of effort.... this thread suggests you do not improve at all and even after 4 years you cannot recognise your own mistakes when they are clearly spelled out for you. Same as you also failed to see the issues with your ragged old oughtness-to-breath argument and you still use that stupid impossiblity-to-be-real religious one. Unless there is a substantial change to your approach to philosophy, we can report that you actually peaked about 5 years ago and now you are just doing the same things but with AI to play Henry to your IC, or wizzy to your jacobi.

To take this any further in substance, we would have to raise issues that would send you into one of your epic sulks. So don't take this any further. I will link back to this thread when I want to make one of the above points, that's then end of the matter.

Running away?
The standard is intellectual integrity and the focus on rational arguments.

I have given a detailed analysis of Boyd's s4.7 and justified my points.
You are merely sticking to that 1-2 statements.

I have analysis of S4.7 para by para that support its conclusion.
I will present it when necessary.

Note my new thread:
Tractatus' 'What is Fact' is a Failure.
viewtopic.php?t=42038

I am now rereading the Tractatus and related secondary literature.

[FlashDangerpants]

Running away?

Why? We're done with the nonsense about me having a cognitive deficit.
Do you want the conversation to be about your autistic tendencies and how they explain this thread?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Running away?

Why? We're done with the nonsense about me having a cognitive deficit.
Do you want the conversation to be about your autistic tendencies and how they explain this thread?

If you have rational argument to argue your case, go ahead.
I have researched enough about 'autism' to know I don't fit into that spectrum.
I have argued, you are the one who is more like to fit within the autism spectrum in not being able to understand [not agree] with my point of view, thus manufacturing strawman[s] against me.

[FlashDangerpants]

Running away?

Why? We're done with the nonsense about me having a cognitive deficit.
Do you want the conversation to be about your autistic tendencies and how they explain this thread?

If you have rational argument to argue your case, go ahead.
I have researched enough about 'autism' to know I don't fit into that spectrum.
I have argued, you are the one who is more like to fit within the autism spectrum in not being able to understand [not agree] with my point of view, thus manufacturing strawman[s] against me.

Ok , show me. Give me an explanation of why no professional philosopher would ever publish a paper arguing that other philosophers who hold a position counter to his must have a cognitive deficit.

Also, speak with a doctor, you are undiagnosed and that isn't good for you. All you really have to do is show him the spreadsheet of the Quran, he'll arrange the tests right away.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why? We're done with the nonsense about me having a cognitive deficit.
Do you want the conversation to be about your autistic tendencies and how they explain this thread?

If you have rational argument to argue your case, go ahead.
I have researched enough about 'autism' to know I don't fit into that spectrum.
I have argued, you are the one who is more like to fit within the autism spectrum in not being able to understand [not agree] with my point of view, thus manufacturing strawman[s] against me.

Ok , show me. Give me an explanation of why no professional philosopher would ever publish a paper arguing that other philosophers who hold a position counter to his must have a cognitive deficit.

Also, speak with a doctor, you are undiagnosed and that isn't good for you. All you really have to do is show him the spreadsheet of the Quran, he'll arrange the tests right away.

Boyd did not specifically assert "other philosophers" but he argued anyone who is morally unconcerned, e.g. moral skeptics or moral nihilists has a moral cognitive deficit in [perceptual] in realizing moral facts within themselves, e.g. empathy.

Boyd's shot in this case hits the bulls-eye and I don't think any moral skeptics or moral nihilists [by definition] would be able to counter his argument.

Spreadsheet analysis of the Quran = autism??
You are really insulting your own intelligence.

Btw, any comments on this thread?
Tractatus' 'What is Fact' is a Failure.
viewtopic.php?t=42038

Do you have Glock's "Wittgenstein Dictionary"?
Read up on the terms 'contextualism' 'framework' [few pages of explanation], hinges, river-beds and other relevant terms of contention.