Moral Fact Deniers Has Cognitive Deficit in Morality

[Peter Holmes]

The imperative and declarative clause forms are not functionally equivalent in grammatical analysis. They may be equivalent in other kinds of analysis.

I intend to eat cake.
I will eat cake.
Somebody, get me cake.
The somebody who gets me cake is me.

None of the above asserts exactly the same fact (state-of-affairs). And the third doesn't have a truth-value. An intention may result in an action. And an action or a description of an action that occurs or occurred is a fact.

[Skepdick]

The imperative and declarative clause forms are not functionally equivalent in grammatical analysis. They may be equivalent in other kinds of analysis.

Imperative and declarative clauses are functionally equivalent in FORMAL grammatical analysis. As in the rigorous kind.

Lambda calculus is declarative.
Turing machines are imperative.

Lambda calculus and Turing machines are functionally equivalent up to isomorphism. In the grammatical/syntactical sense Logical proofs are EXACTLY the same sort of things as computer programs.

That is literally what compilers do! They take a statement in a declarative formal language (such as Haskell) and they translate it into an Imperatives. CPU instructions - manipulating physical matter.

None of the above asserts exactly the same fact (state-of-affairs).

Uh. You don't get to decide what my words mean or assert?

I get to decide that. I am telling you that all of the above assert EXACTLY the same thing.

You have a simple choice on the matter: accept it as fact, or fuck off.

And the third doesn't have a truth-value. An intention may result in an action. And an action or a description of an action that occurs or occurred is a fact.

Now look who's getting tripped up in the logical paraphernalia?

I didn't say "MAYBE I want cake."
I said "I want cake."

"I WILL have cake." is a declarative, factual statement about the future. My imperative actions brought about the factuality of that statement.

I described a goal.
I achieved a goal.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope. Like you, Mill was suckered by the ancient delusion of mistaking what we say for what there is or how we think. What logicians actually do is study relationships between declarative sentences in arguments - how to relate them consistently, without contradiction. Logic isn't the science of proof, evidence or reasoning, because those have nothing to do with language, which is what logic deals with. Logicians say nothing about the truth-values of factual premises, because those are other people's business.

No wonder,

Like you and your below;

A logic deals with language, not reality.

When you ignore logic's relation to reality, what you ended up is merely 'mental masturbation'.
This is why I stated your 'fact' in fact, "fart".

I understand there are critiques of Mill and they are all in the same shoes like yours, i.e. grappling with illusions rather than reality.

Ah. Reasoning from the Donald Trump school of intellectual laziness - or inadequacy - with childish abuse to distract attention.

NOPE, you are the one who had not been providing rational counter argument most of the time, i.e. dogmatically stuck with the definition of "fact" from the Analytic School of Philosophy.

I have argued with evidence from you, i.e.

A logic deals with language, not reality.

So logically, your logic deal not with reality but unreality, i.e. illusions, thus mental masterbation.

I have also argued what you deemed as fact is ultimately fart, i.e

• What is Fact?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

[Peter Holmes]

No wonder,

Like you and your below;


When you ignore logic's relation to reality, what you ended up is merely 'mental masturbation'.
This is why I stated your 'fact' in fact, "fart".

I understand there are critiques of Mill and they are all in the same shoes like yours, i.e. grappling with illusions rather than reality.

Ah. Reasoning from the Donald Trump school of intellectual laziness - or inadequacy - with childish abuse to distract attention.

NOPE, you are the one who had not been providing rational counter argument most of the time, i.e. dogmatically stuck with the definition of "fact" from the Analytic School of Philosophy.

I have argued with evidence from you, i.e.

A logic deals with language, not reality.

So logically, your logic deal not with reality but unreality, i.e. illusions, thus mental masterbation.

I have also argued what you deemed as fact is ultimately fart, i.e

• What is Fact?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

Features of reality don't conform to our ways of talking about them. Nor does our talking about them constitute their existence or nature.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The imperative and declarative clause forms are not functionally equivalent in grammatical analysis. They may be equivalent in other kinds of analysis.

I intend to eat cake.
I will eat cake.
Somebody, get me cake.
The somebody who gets me cake is me.

None of the above asserts exactly the same fact (state-of-affairs). And the third doesn't have a truth-value. An intention may result in an action. And an action or a description of an action that occurs or occurred is a fact.

What is grammatical is merely confined to the Framework and System of Grammar to increase efficiency in communications.
But Grammar is NOT an imperative and the be-all & end-all in communications.

Are you implying 'intending' is not a fact and that only the action that follow is a fact?

Note
Intention;

• Intention = The action or fact of intending.
  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/intention

In court "intention" is one of the most critical fact for the jury or judge to decide their decisions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ah. Reasoning from the Donald Trump school of intellectual laziness - or inadequacy - with childish abuse to distract attention.

NOPE, you are the one who had not been providing rational counter argument most of the time, i.e. dogmatically stuck with the definition of "fact" from the Analytic School of Philosophy.

I have argued with evidence from you, i.e.

A logic deals with language, not reality.

So logically, your logic deal not with reality but unreality, i.e. illusions, thus mental masterbation.

I have also argued what you deemed as fact is ultimately fart, i.e

• What is Fact?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

Features of reality don't conform to our ways of talking about them. Nor does our talking about them constitute their existence or nature.

That is why we need logic only as a crutch/tool to assist us in getting as close as possible to the approximation of what is reality-by-ourselves in order to be productive positively.

So logic primarily deal with reality-by-ourselves [btw not reality-in-itself which is illusory].

Where logic is for your toying and self-satisfaction, that is mental masterbation.

[Peter Holmes]

The imperative and declarative clause forms are not functionally equivalent in grammatical analysis. They may be equivalent in other kinds of analysis.

I intend to eat cake.
I will eat cake.
Somebody, get me cake.
The somebody who gets me cake is me.

None of the above asserts exactly the same fact (state-of-affairs). And the third doesn't have a truth-value. An intention may result in an action. And an action or a description of an action that occurs or occurred is a fact.

What is grammatical is merely confined to the Framework and System of Grammar to increase efficiency in communications.
But Grammar is NOT an imperative and the be-all & end-all in communications.

Are you implying 'intending' is not a fact and that only the action that follow is a fact?

Note
Intention;

• Intention = The action or fact of intending.
  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/intention

In court "intention" is one of the most critical fact for the jury or judge to decide their decisions.

We can explain what we mean when we say we intend to do something.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The imperative and declarative clause forms are not functionally equivalent in grammatical analysis. They may be equivalent in other kinds of analysis.

I intend to eat cake.
I will eat cake.
Somebody, get me cake.
The somebody who gets me cake is me.

None of the above asserts exactly the same fact (state-of-affairs). And the third doesn't have a truth-value. An intention may result in an action. And an action or a description of an action that occurs or occurred is a fact.

What is grammatical is merely confined to the Framework and System of Grammar to increase efficiency in communications.
But Grammar is NOT an imperative and the be-all & end-all in communications.

Are you implying 'intending' is not a fact and that only the action that follow is a fact?

Note
Intention;

• Intention = The action or fact of intending.
  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/intention

In court "intention" is one of the most critical fact for the jury or judge to decide their decisions.

We can explain what we mean when we say we intend to do something.

Then ask of any one who have intention to kill you [for whatever reason] to explain his intentions before carrying out the act.
Or have any murder in most cases [note] explained or expressed their intentions to kill the victim before they carried out the murder?

The 'impulse of intending' is a fact.
This is the same as the consistent and continual moral impulse within the moral agent's brain/mind of ' one human ought not to kill another human being' is a fact.

In any actions, there are two main set of facts, i.e.

• 1. the impulses to act and its corresponding activities in the brain
  2. the subsequent actions that follow

What I deemed as relative moral facts are with reference to 1 and not 2.
To deal with 2 is too late, i.e. fire fighting rather than addressing the root causes.

[Peter Holmes]

What is grammatical is merely confined to the Framework and System of Grammar to increase efficiency in communications.
But Grammar is NOT an imperative and the be-all & end-all in communications.

Are you implying 'intending' is not a fact and that only the action that follow is a fact?

Note
Intention;

• Intention = The action or fact of intending.
  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/intention

In court "intention" is one of the most critical fact for the jury or judge to decide their decisions.

We can explain what we mean when we say we intend to do something.

Then ask of any one who have intention to kill you [for whatever reason] to explain his intentions before carrying out the act.
Or have any murder in most cases [note] explained or expressed their intentions to kill the victim before they carried out the murder?

The 'impulse of intending' is a fact.
This is the same as the consistent and continual moral impulse within the moral agent's brain/mind of ' one human ought not to kill another human being' is a fact.

In any actions, there are two main set of facts, i.e.

• 1. the impulses to act and its corresponding activities in the brain
  2. the subsequent actions that follow

What I deemed as relative moral facts are with reference to 1 and not 2.
To deal with 2 is too late, i.e. fire fighting rather than addressing the root causes.

Fact: brain events produce what we call impulses to act and intentions, such as the impulse or intention to kill.

Opinion: it's morally wrong to kill.

There's absolutely no connection between those two claims. Your task remains to demonstrate the connection between a true factual assertion and a moral conclusion. No moral realist or objectivist, of any stripe, has done so, to my knowledge.

The claim that linguistic facts are products of intersubjective consensus, so that any linguistic product of intersubjective consensus is a fact, is false - and an elementary mistake. Consensus isn't even a necessary - let alone a sufficient - condition for what we call a fact.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We can explain what we mean when we say we intend to do something.

Then ask of any one who have intention to kill you [for whatever reason] to explain his intentions before carrying out the act.
Or have any murder in most cases [note] explained or expressed their intentions to kill the victim before they carried out the murder?

The 'impulse of intending' is a fact.
This is the same as the consistent and continual moral impulse within the moral agent's brain/mind of ' one human ought not to kill another human being' is a fact.

In any actions, there are two main set of facts, i.e.

• 1. the impulses to act and its corresponding activities in the brain
  2. the subsequent actions that follow

What I deemed as relative moral facts are with reference to 1 and not 2.
To deal with 2 is too late, i.e. fire fighting rather than addressing the root causes.

Fact: brain events produce what we call impulses to act and intentions, such as the impulse or intention to kill.

Opinion: it's morally wrong to kill.

There's absolutely no connection between those two claims.

When have I ever attempted to 'connect' the impulse or intention to kill with 'it is morally wrong to kill'.

I have claimed moral facts in alignment with their specific referent are generated via the Framework and System [F/S] of Morality and Ethics.
From that F/S I have generated the following moral facts as a moral standard and GUIDE, i.e.
"no human ought to kill another human"
I have provided the justifications for the above Justified True Moral Belief via the Moral F/S - details in the various previous posts and OPs.

Your task remains to demonstrate the connection between a true factual assertion and a moral conclusion. No moral realist or objectivist, of any stripe, has done so, to my knowledge.

Yes, it is not solvable BUT ONLY within "your" dogmatic knowledge, rigidity and ignorance.

But it is solvable if one thinks outside the box.
Note how Bohr resolved the once seemingly impossible dilemma in Physics which was because most Physicists were stuck in the old paradigm then. Bohr applied the complementarity principle from Yin-Yang to resolve the dilemma and now QM is one of the most significant contribution to humanity at present.

I have read of many solutions to the 'Is-Ought' Problem and the most reliable is the one from:

• Alan Gewith -
  "The 'Is-Ought' Problem Resolved"
  Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, Vol. 47 (1973 - 1974), pp. 34-61 (28 pages)
  Published by: American Philosophical Association/

As usual there will be crazy counters from opponents of your breed, but their counters are as usual too rigid, dogmatic, narrow, shallow and not thinking-outside-the-box.

The point is you are operating within a rigid paradigm from a Framework and System of Knowledge, i.e. Analytic Philosophy and Philosophical Realism which conditions do not allow facts [as defined within the F/S] to be moral facts.
This F/S of Analytic Philosophy is too pedantic with the Law of the Excluded Middle which is not efficient in all aspects of reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_ex ... Criticisms
Those who do not subscribe the very limited Analytic Philosophy Framework do not have to abide with the rules set and agreed within themselves.

• Hey! you are not a God to dictate, your thinking, views, and philosophical framework is the ONLY WAY and the ONLY Truth. You look like a Fundy in this case.

The Problem is your thinking is too narrow, shallow and worst too dogmatic thus unable to think-outside-the-box and shift paradigm to generate useful knowledge and practices. Note this challenge;

• 
  The "nine dots" puzzle.
  The goal of the puzzle is to link all 9 dots using four straight lines or fewer, without lifting the pen and without tracing the same line more than once. One solution appears below.

Those [not informed of the solution] like you with the sort of narrow, shallow and dogmatic thinking will NEVER be able to find a solution and will just surrender to make various noises and grunts as a defense mechanisms.
To resolve the solution, one need to think-outside-the-box.

Those [like your] who are unable to think-outside-the-box will NEVER be able to reconcile empirical facts to arrive at justified moral facts which are necessary to guide and steer humans to morally right actions.
What you are doing is adopting a very lackadaisical attitude to morality and ethics.

The claim that linguistic facts are products of intersubjective consensus, so that any linguistic product of intersubjective consensus is a fact, is false - and an elementary mistake. Consensus isn't even a necessary - let alone a sufficient - condition for what we call a fact.

What you called "fact" within Analytical Philosophy is ultimately 'fart' i.e. illusory.

Linguistic facts emerge from intersubjective consensus within a specific Logico-Linguistic Framework and System.
In addition the so called referents representing those facts are also emergence from intersubjective consensus within the mechanisms of reality.

If you are so insistence, prove to me a fact-in-itself or referent-in-itself exists as ultimately real.
I have mentioned Russell's "perhaps there is no table [the referent] at all" many times. You have not bothered to counter this. For you 'ignorance is bliss' or ignorance is truth.
Read this and provide a counter to it;
http://www.ditext.com/russell/rus1.html

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

In this quote, Russell is referring to the 'referent-table' not the fact-table.

I maintain it is true, there is no referent that is a table-in-itself.
Prove this is wrong?

[FlashDangerpants]

Here is an interesting point from the following;

https://www.amazon.com/Essays-Moral-Rea ... 0801495415

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

I agree with the above point because, moral facts [moral propensities] are inherent in ALL human beings, whilst active in some minority.
Those with an active moral impulse [mirror neurons, etc.] will naturally recognize there are moral facts intuitively and for some, thereupon seek evidences and reasons to justify their existence.
Meanwhile, the majority recognize there are moral facts by virtue of God given moral facts.

The moral facts deniers [e.g. Sculptor, Peter Holmes, Flasher..] are the minority who has a cognitive deficit in moral sense and impulse.

in [..] = mine

[The Moral Deniers argues:]

• Mere facts (especially mere natural facts) cannot have this sort of logical connection to rational choice or reasons for action.
  Therefore, so the objection goes, there cannot be moral facts;
  Moral Realism (or at least naturalistic Moral Realism) is impossible.

..the person for whom moral judgments are motivationally indifferent would not only be psychologically atypical but would have some sort of cognitive deficit with respect to moral reasoning as well.

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.

If we adopt a naturalistic conception of moral knowledge we can diagnose in such people a [Moral] deficit in the capacity to make moral judgments somewhat akin to a perceptual deficit.

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.

It is also very probably right, as Hume insists, that the operation of sympathy [empathy] is motivationally important: ...

The psychological mechanisms by which all this takes place may be more complicated than Hume imagined, but the fact remains that one and the same psychological mechanism—sympathy [empathy]—plays both a cognitive and a motivational [moral] role in normal human beings.

• 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.

The full resources of naturalistic epistemology permit the moral realist to acknowledge and explain this important insight of moral anti-realists [moral facts deniers].

Agree/Disagree??

I have a copy of this book now. However I don't know which is these essays contains this weird argument that says me and Pete and Sculptor are retarded.

Does anyone know which essay he's on about?

[Iwannaplato]

I have a copy of this book now. However I don't know which is these essays contains this weird argument that says me and Pete and Sculptor are retarded.

Does anyone know which essay he's on about?

I think the whole thing he nicely sums up here:

moral facts [moral propensities]

Propensity
an inclination or natural tendency to behave in a particular way.

He's not talking about moral facts, he's talking about possible facts about morals: where they come from, tendenices toward some we might have more often statictically than others.

Nothing at all about what is GOOD or BAD even in attitude.

Bears have propensities towards certain behavior. So, do Komodo Dragons, wolves.

Sure, there are propensities out there.

[Peter Holmes]

It's one big question-begging fallacy: there are moral facts, so moral-fact-deniers must be morally retarded.

And notice how far VA has come. Empathy and sympathy are now irrelevant in his argument for moral objectivity.

[Iwannaplato]

It's one big question-begging fallacy: there are moral facts, so moral-fact-deniers must be morally retarded.

And notice how far VA has come. Empathy and sympathy are now irrelevant in his argument for moral objectivity.

I've run into him in forums for years. He is generally the first to go ad hom/insult. He's had that propensity for a while.

Occams' razor. Moral fact being a moral propensity after being parsimoniously sliced = behavioral propensity = stuff people have some statistical tendency to feel or do.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's one big question-begging fallacy: there are moral facts, so moral-fact-deniers must be morally retarded.

And notice how far VA has come. Empathy and sympathy are now irrelevant in his argument for moral objectivity.

Where did I use the term 'retarded'?

• Note: The term retarded is increasingly considered offensive. The use of intellectually disabled is now preferred over retarded in medical, educational, and regulatory contexts, as well as in general use.
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retarded

In the OP, the author used the term 'cognitive deficit' in moral sense:

Here is an interesting point from the following;
https://www.amazon.com/Essays-Moral-Rea ... 0801495415
The author therein claimed those who deny moral facts has a cognitive deficit in moral sense just like perceptual deficit in perception.

Again where did proposed the following:
"Empathy and sympathy are now irrelevant in his argument for moral objectivity."

I posted this a day ago:

Two Senses of 'ought'.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39320

Whist Hume denounced NOFI in the first sense, his morality based on moral sense and sentiments [sympathy - empathy] is actually grounded on objective moral facts of oughtness, which as with his time, he was ignorant of the real objective facts of morality.

There are loads of research pointing to mirror neurons [neurobiological facts] as having an impact on empathy [sympathy -Hume]

Many scholars believe that the mirror neurons, or at least a mirroring mechanism, can account for some basic forms of empathy. Link:

Btw, mirror neurons and empathy [sympathy] is not the sole basis for morality but there is a whole suite of neurobiological facts represent the various activities of what is morality proper that had evolved overs eons and is aligned with human nature.