FDP has a Cognitive Moral Deficit in Morality

[Veritas Aequitas]

Something is obviously wrong with you, especially philosophically discussions are supposed to maintain some sense of better manners.
I won't be responding to your other posts in other threads except to argue for my stance in this thread.
From your recent posts you are just a philosophically empty vessel with no solid substance to support your arguments.

Look at the title of this thread. You have no right to accuse me of disrespect.

Look at this post [Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:30 am]:

You are incompetent, a buffoon, a foolish and deluded bulshit artist. You have misread your source material, which blatantly does not accuse "moral fact deniers" of any cognitive deficit.

Since then you have been insulting me all the way.
This threat is a tit for tat and I insist it is based on fact.

More so, you are relying on cherry-picked statements rather than on the whole of S4.7 within the whole Boyd's article 'How to be a Moral Realist".

My original thread was with reference to 'moral facts deniers' which is in line with Boyd's

[Boyd]"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."

This factual thread related moral facts deniers with those who are self-declared 'moral skeptics'.

I had continued to discuss because it seem you are turning over a new leaf but lately that leaf is turning brown [attacked by fungus & molds] and cracking. It is my discretion to keep the distance as much as possible.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I maintain, you as a moral fact denier and moral skeptic, i.e. a moral-antirealist in opposition to moral realism [Boyd et. al] has a Cognitive Moral Deficit as Boyd argued in S4.7:

Here is another AI view of Boyd's S4.7;

[Summary of S4.7]

Objection to Moral Realism:
Moral judgments supposedly provide a necessary reason for action (e.g., if something is morally good, you should do it).
Facts, especially natural facts, can't provide such a connection.
Therefore, moral facts can't exist (Moral Realism is false).

Naturalist Response:
Moral judgments don't necessarily provide reasons for action.
Non-human beings could understand morality but be indifferent to it.
Even some humans might be indifferent.

The Connection Between Morality and Action:
Moral goodness (as defined by human needs) can provide some reason for action for most humans.
However, this doesn't explain why the connection feels so strong.

The Anti-Realist Intuition:
Many philosophers believe someone indifferent to morality would be cognitively impaired.
They see this as a failure to recognize a necessary link between moral goodness and action.

Boyd's Argument:
People indifferent to morality likely have a cognitive deficit, but not as the anti-realist suggests.
With a naturalistic view of knowledge, this deficit is similar to a perceptual one (e.g., colorblindness).

The Role of Sympathy:
Accessing human well-being and understanding others requires sympathy (empathy).
Sympathy allows us to imagine ourselves in others' situations and feel for them.
This empathy plays a role in both understanding morality (cognition) and caring about it (motivation).

Conclusion:
Someone indifferent to morality likely lacks sympathy, a crucial cognitive tool for moral reasoning.
Their motivational indifference stems from a cognitive deficiency in understanding the impact of actions on others.

That is my point you [as a moral skeptic] have a cognitive deficiency in morality.

[FlashDangerpants]

I maintain, you as a moral fact denier and moral skeptic, i.e. a moral-antirealist in opposition to moral realism [Boyd et. al] has a Cognitive Moral Deficit as Boyd argued in S4.7:

Here is another AI view of Boyd's S4.7;

[Summary of S4.7]

Objection to Moral Realism:
Moral judgments supposedly provide a necessary reason for action (e.g., if something is morally good, you should do it).
Facts, especially natural facts, can't provide such a connection.
Therefore, moral facts can't exist (Moral Realism is false).

Naturalist Response:
Moral judgments don't necessarily provide reasons for action.
Non-human beings could understand morality but be indifferent to it.
Even some humans might be indifferent.

The Connection Between Morality and Action:
Moral goodness (as defined by human needs) can provide some reason for action for most humans.
However, this doesn't explain why the connection feels so strong.

The Anti-Realist Intuition:
Many philosophers believe someone indifferent to morality would be cognitively impaired.
They see this as a failure to recognize a necessary link between moral goodness and action.

Boyd's Argument:
People indifferent to morality likely have a cognitive deficit, but not as the anti-realist suggests.
With a naturalistic view of knowledge, this deficit is similar to a perceptual one (e.g., colorblindness).

The Role of Sympathy:
Accessing human well-being and understanding others requires sympathy (empathy).
Sympathy allows us to imagine ourselves in others' situations and feel for them.
This empathy plays a role in both understanding morality (cognition) and caring about it (motivation).

Conclusion:
Someone indifferent to morality likely lacks sympathy, a crucial cognitive tool for moral reasoning.
Their motivational indifference stems from a cognitive deficiency in understanding the impact of actions on others.

That is my point you [as a moral skeptic] have a cognitive deficiency in morality.

The AI didn't assert that moral anti-realists lack understanding or moral motivation at all. You are imagining things because you can't read very well.

It is your long running inability to imagine what other people are thinking that got you into this situation, but your pride is what stopped you from realising you had erred and simply squashing the problem early on.



.... have you been trying to get your AI buddy to say something about me all this time, and failing because it would be unethical for an AI to actually write such a thing?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I maintain, you as a moral fact denier and moral skeptic, i.e. a moral-antirealist in opposition to moral realism [Boyd et. al] has a Cognitive Moral Deficit as Boyd argued in S4.7:

Here is another AI view of Boyd's S4.7;

[Summary of S4.7]

Objection to Moral Realism:
Moral judgments supposedly provide a necessary reason for action (e.g., if something is morally good, you should do it).
Facts, especially natural facts, can't provide such a connection.
Therefore, moral facts can't exist (Moral Realism is false).

Naturalist Response:
Moral judgments don't necessarily provide reasons for action.
Non-human beings could understand morality but be indifferent to it.
Even some humans might be indifferent.

The Connection Between Morality and Action:
Moral goodness (as defined by human needs) can provide some reason for action for most humans.
However, this doesn't explain why the connection feels so strong.

The Anti-Realist Intuition:
Many philosophers believe someone indifferent to morality would be cognitively impaired.
They see this as a failure to recognize a necessary link between moral goodness and action.

Boyd's Argument:
People indifferent to morality likely have a cognitive deficit, but not as the anti-realist suggests.
With a naturalistic view of knowledge, this deficit is similar to a perceptual one (e.g., colorblindness).

The Role of Sympathy:
Accessing human well-being and understanding others requires sympathy (empathy).
Sympathy allows us to imagine ourselves in others' situations and feel for them.
This empathy plays a role in both understanding morality (cognition) and caring about it (motivation).

Conclusion:
Someone indifferent to morality likely lacks sympathy, a crucial cognitive tool for moral reasoning.
Their motivational indifference stems from a cognitive deficiency in understanding the impact of actions on others.

That is my point you [as a moral skeptic] have a cognitive deficiency in morality.

The AI didn't assert that moral anti-realists lack understanding or moral motivation at all. You are imagining things because you can't read very well.

It is your long running inability to imagine what other people are thinking that got you into this situation, but your pride is what stopped you from realising you had erred and simply squashing the problem early on.

.... have you been trying to get your AI buddy to say something about me all this time, and failing because it would be unethical for an AI to actually write such a thing?

Yes, AI did not assert moral anti-realists lack understanding or moral motivation at all, but understanding and adopting moral skepticism or moral nihilism as a personal ideology is different.

I can understand communism, nazism, necrophilla, pedophilla, moral antirealism on an intellectual basis, but that does not mean I adopt or are in those states that drive me into their related action.

You are a self-declared moral skeptic which mean you do not acknowledge there are moral elements within humanity and yourself.
Thus all your motivations will have no relation to anything that is term 'moral'.
This does not mean do not act 'positive'-in-general, but that has nothing to do with morality as far as you are concern. The most you can rely on human being positive is related to conventions, customs, and compliance with the law with reference to violence and killing of humans.

As a moral realist and objectivist, I believe that all humans have inherent moral elements [neural based] within themselves, thus strive to improve the average moral competence [e.g. moral quotient] within humanity.
This is like those who believe all humans has the inherent potential for intelligence [neural base] and strive to find ways to increase the average intelligence of all humans, e.g. smart drugs, education, training and other methods.

[FlashDangerpants]

You are a self-declare moral skeptic which mean you do not acknowledge there are moral elements within humanity and yourself.

That is an outright lie. nothing I have ever written entails any such thing. Retract now.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are a self-declare moral skeptic which mean you do not acknowledge there are moral elements within humanity and yourself.

That is an outright lie. nothing I have ever written entails any such thing. Retract now.

As implied from;

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

[FlashDangerpants]

You are a self-declare moral skeptic which mean you do not acknowledge there are moral elements within humanity and yourself.

That is an outright lie. nothing I have ever written entails any such thing. Retract now.

As implied from;

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

Nothing I have ever written entails any such thing as lack of moral "elements". Retract now. This is a question of either basic integrity or simple humanity, and you are failing horribly on one count or the other.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That is an outright lie. nothing I have ever written entails any such thing. Retract now.

As implied from;

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

Nothing I have ever written entails any such thing as lack of moral "elements". Retract now. This is a question of either basic integrity or simple humanity, and you are failing horribly on one count or the other.

There is nothing for me to retract.
You want me say you are a moral realist who believe in objective moral elements, i.e. moral facts, values and properties?

I will argue and declare you as a human being generically, have moral facts [elements] within you. But you are claiming there are no such moral facts.

As a self-declared moral skeptic, you personally do not have any authority to stand on any moral grounds; you cannot claim you have a moral compass.
It is the same if one is an atheist, one do not have any authority to stand on any theological grounds.

Nothing I have ever written entails any such thing as lack of moral "elements".

Moral elements = objective moral facts, values and properties.
If I am not mistaken you are also aligned with Mackie's Error Theory;

Error theory is a view that's skeptical about morality. It claims that people are systematically in error when they make moral judgments. You might think you know that genocide is morally wrong, but for J.L. Mackie you don't know this. There are no objective moral values or properties for your judgment to latch onto.

[Atla]

I will argue and declare you as a human being generically, have moral facts [elements] within you. But you are claiming there are no such moral facts.

That's not what facts mean under any circumstances. Maybe you shouldn't have drastically changed the meaning of a few basic English words to suit your agenda.

It's a fact that humans generally have moral elements within them, but saying that humans generally have moral facts within them is word salad.

"humans have moral facts within"
Google: 0 hits

"humans have moral facts inside"
Google: 0 hits

"we have moral facts inside"
Google: 0 hits

"we have moral facts within"
Google: 0 hits

"our moral facts inside"
Google: 0 hits

"our moral facts within"
Google: 0 hits

[Atla]

Do moral subjectivists have a cognitive moral deficit?

Moral subjectivism posits that morality is subjective and varies from person to person or culture to culture. It doesn't necessarily imply a cognitive deficit; rather, it suggests that moral judgments are based on individual beliefs, emotions, or cultural norms rather than objective standards. Whether this constitutes a deficit depends on one's perspective. Some may argue that it allows for diversity and empathy, while others may see it as lacking in a universal moral framework.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have argued,
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
1. The FSRC sense,
2. The philosophical realist's sense which is grounded on an illusion.

Example;
Empathy [in a way, not totally] is an objective moral FSRC fact.
Empathy exists as a neural state and potential within the brain and human self.
Therefore there are objective moral FSRC fact within the brain and human self.

[FlashDangerpants]

I will argue and declare you as a human being generically, have moral facts [elements] within you. But you are claiming there are no such moral facts.

As a self-declared moral skeptic, you personally do not have any authority to stand on any moral grounds; you cannot claim you have a moral compass.
It is the same if one is an atheist, one do not have any authority to stand on any theological grounds.

You are making zero sense. Unless you are saying that my actions are unmotivated by any of the moral feelings or beliefs I hold, then your postion has nothing to to with Boyd and my original case since 2020 that you are semi-literate at best is proven. Worse, we have proven that you are consistentlyunable to read over a number of years and we have grounds to predict that you will probably remain a total failure for the rest of your life.

On the other hand... If you are saying that as a result of my meta-ethical claims about the logical status of moral statements (that they are not grounded on knowledge but rather on a web of beliefs) entails that I do not even have moral feelings or beliefs... then you are hopelessly stupid and you will remain that way for the rest of your life.

You have no room for manoeuvre left in this matter because you have been utterly reckless over a number of years. You remain exactly as incompetent today as I told you in 2020.

Nothing I have ever written entails any such thing as lack of moral "elements".

Moral elements = objective moral facts, values and properties.
If I am not mistaken you are also aligned with Mackie's Error Theory;

Error theory is a view that's skeptical about morality. It claims that people are systematically in error when they make moral judgments. You might think you know that genocide is morally wrong, but for J.L. Mackie you don't know this. There are no objective moral values or properties for your judgment to latch onto.

You have now just added Mackie to the list of philosophers you don't understand. This whole field is too clever for you, you aren't coping and that is after you spent a decade telling everyone you are the expert. The argument from queerness doesn't lead to any form of doubt that people have moral beliefs and motives, nobody is promulgating such doubt. You are fantasising about that because you think the contents of other people's thoughts are just some random mess of nosense.

If you read Mackie (becuase guess what ... yes I have) the whole of the second half of that book is an effort to sketch out how a universal set of moral precepts could be constructed. That bit doesn't really work though.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I will argue and declare you as a human being generically, have moral facts [elements] within you. But you are claiming there are no such moral facts.

As a self-declared moral skeptic, you personally do not have any authority to stand on any moral grounds; you cannot claim you have a moral compass.
It is the same if one is an atheist, one do not have any authority to stand on any theological grounds.

You are making zero sense. Unless you are saying that my actions are unmotivated by any of the moral feelings or beliefs I hold, then your postion has nothing to to with Boyd and my original case since 2020 that you are semi-literate at best is proven. Worse, we have proven that you are consistentlyunable to read over a number of years and we have grounds to predict that you will probably remain a total failure for the rest of your life.

On the other hand... If you are saying that as a result of my meta-ethical claims about the logical status of moral statements (that they are not grounded on knowledge but rather on a web of beliefs) entails that I do not even have moral feelings or beliefs... then you are hopelessly stupid and you will remain that way for the rest of your life.

You have no room for manoeuvre left in this matter because you have been utterly reckless over a number of years. You remain exactly as incompetent today as I told you in 2020.

Nothing I have ever written entails any such thing as lack of moral "elements".

Moral elements = objective moral facts, values and properties.
If I am not mistaken you are also aligned with Mackie's Error Theory;

Error theory is a view that's skeptical about morality. It claims that people are systematically in error when they make moral judgments. You might think you know that genocide is morally wrong, but for J.L. Mackie you don't know this. There are no objective moral values or properties for your judgment to latch onto.

You have now just added Mackie to the list of philosophers you don't understand. This whole field is too clever for you, you aren't coping and that is after you spent a decade telling everyone you are the expert. The argument from queerness doesn't lead to any form of doubt that people have moral beliefs and motives, nobody is promulgating such doubt. You are fantasising about that because you think the contents of other people's thoughts are just some random mess of nosense.

If you read Mackie (becuase guess what ... yes I have) the whole of the second half of that book is an effort to sketch out how a universal set of moral precepts could be constructed. That bit doesn't really work though.

You are making zero sense. Unless you are saying that my actions are unmotivated by any of the moral feelings or beliefs I hold,

My point is as self-declared moral skeptic [as defined] you don't any ground to assert "any of the moral feelings or beliefs I hold"

You may have feelings [of a positive act] but they can in no way for you as a moral skeptic to claim these are moral feelings, that is an oxymoron.

I have taken the whole of Boyd's s4.7 to justify my point, while you have only cherry-picked a few sentences.

[FlashDangerpants]

I will argue and declare you as a human being generically, have moral facts [elements] within you. But you are claiming there are no such moral facts.

As a self-declared moral skeptic, you personally do not have any authority to stand on any moral grounds; you cannot claim you have a moral compass.
It is the same if one is an atheist, one do not have any authority to stand on any theological grounds.

You are making zero sense. Unless you are saying that my actions are unmotivated by any of the moral feelings or beliefs I hold, then your postion has nothing to to with Boyd and my original case since 2020 that you are semi-literate at best is proven. Worse, we have proven that you are consistentlyunable to read over a number of years and we have grounds to predict that you will probably remain a total failure for the rest of your life.

On the other hand... If you are saying that as a result of my meta-ethical claims about the logical status of moral statements (that they are not grounded on knowledge but rather on a web of beliefs) entails that I do not even have moral feelings or beliefs... then you are hopelessly stupid and you will remain that way for the rest of your life.

You have no room for manoeuvre left in this matter because you have been utterly reckless over a number of years. You remain exactly as incompetent today as I told you in 2020.

Moral elements = objective moral facts, values and properties.
If I am not mistaken you are also aligned with Mackie's Error Theory;

You have now just added Mackie to the list of philosophers you don't understand. This whole field is too clever for you, you aren't coping and that is after you spent a decade telling everyone you are the expert. The argument from queerness doesn't lead to any form of doubt that people have moral beliefs and motives, nobody is promulgating such doubt. You are fantasising about that because you think the contents of other people's thoughts are just some random mess of nosense.

If you read Mackie (becuase guess what ... yes I have) the whole of the second half of that book is an effort to sketch out how a universal set of moral precepts could be constructed. That bit doesn't really work though.

You are making zero sense. Unless you are saying that my actions are unmotivated by any of the moral feelings or beliefs I hold,

My point is as self-declared moral skeptic [as defined] you don't any ground to assert "any of the moral feelings or beliefs I hold"

You may have feelings [of a positive act] but they can in no way for you as a moral skeptic to claim these are moral feelings, that is an oxymoron.

I have taken the whole of Boyd's s4.7 to justify my point, while you have only cherry-picked a few sentences.

As a moral skeptic I say that the moral beliefs we hold are beliefs not knowings. Of course those are moral beliefs. You don't understand that, you are very very bad at this stuff. You are actually much worse off than I ever realised.

Nothing in Boyd supports what you've written. It's just that you can't read.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are making zero sense. Unless you are saying that my actions are unmotivated by any of the moral feelings or beliefs I hold, then your postion has nothing to to with Boyd and my original case since 2020 that you are semi-literate at best is proven. Worse, we have proven that you are consistentlyunable to read over a number of years and we have grounds to predict that you will probably remain a total failure for the rest of your life.

On the other hand... If you are saying that as a result of my meta-ethical claims about the logical status of moral statements (that they are not grounded on knowledge but rather on a web of beliefs) entails that I do not even have moral feelings or beliefs... then you are hopelessly stupid and you will remain that way for the rest of your life.

You have no room for manoeuvre left in this matter because you have been utterly reckless over a number of years. You remain exactly as incompetent today as I told you in 2020.


You have now just added Mackie to the list of philosophers you don't understand. This whole field is too clever for you, you aren't coping and that is after you spent a decade telling everyone you are the expert. The argument from queerness doesn't lead to any form of doubt that people have moral beliefs and motives, nobody is promulgating such doubt. You are fantasising about that because you think the contents of other people's thoughts are just some random mess of nosense.

If you read Mackie (becuase guess what ... yes I have) the whole of the second half of that book is an effort to sketch out how a universal set of moral precepts could be constructed. That bit doesn't really work though.

You are making zero sense. Unless you are saying that my actions are unmotivated by any of the moral feelings or beliefs I hold,

My point is as self-declared moral skeptic [as defined] you don't any ground to assert "any of the moral feelings or beliefs I hold"

You may have feelings [of a positive act] but they can in no way for you as a moral skeptic to claim these are moral feelings, that is an oxymoron.

I have taken the whole of Boyd's s4.7 to justify my point, while you have only cherry-picked a few sentences.

As a moral skeptic I say that the moral beliefs we hold are beliefs not knowings. Of course those are moral beliefs. You don't understand that, you are very very bad at this stuff. You are actually much worse off than I ever realised.

Nothing in Boyd supports what you've written. It's just that you can't read.

I am relying what is the typical definition of a moral skeptic.

Show me where are the definition of a moral skeptic that is the same as your definition above.
It is very clear you are a moral fact denier which is the emphasis of my first thread.