[77874] in Daily_Rumour
Get Your Knife - 70% Discount!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Huusk)
Thu May 1 13:44:00 2025
Date: Thu, 1 May 2025 19:43:58 +0200
From: "Huusk" <HuuskHandmadeKnives@denticore.za.com>
Reply-To: "Get Huusk" <HuuskHandmadeKnives@denticore.za.com>
To: <rumour-mtg@bloom-picayune.mit.edu>
--823aad0c1ebb7a267dd92282e164040f_3120b_46e40
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Get Your Knife - 70% Discount!
http://denticore.za.com/cnlKuA2VVsch7zUTGQeq2NKZGs9pzNnJwBbpYvo_Z2P03-mfQA
http://denticore.za.com/UbvZ-U19C29xcJt6S56buFe073rpCcQE548-kj_aKyv9QbSSVQ
w that moral convictions (which are not necessarily beliefs, e.g. feelings of moral approval or disapproval) are intrinsically motivating. That is, the motivational internalist believes that there is an internal, necessary connection between one's conviction that X ought to be done and one's motivation to do X. Conversely, the motivational externalist (or moral externalist) claims that there is no necessary internal connection between moral convictions and moral motives. That is, there is no necessary connection between the conviction that X is wrong and the motivational drive not to do X. (The use of these terms has roots in W.D. Falk's (1947) paper "'Ought' and Motivation").
These views in moral psychology have various implications. In particular, if motivational internalism is true, then amorality is unintelligible (and metaphysically impossible). An amoralist is not simply someone who is immoral, rather it is someone who knows what the moral things to do are, yet is not motivated to do them. Such an agent is unintelligible to the motivational internalist, because moral judgments about the right thing to do have built into them corresponding motivations to do those things that are judged by the agent to be the moral things to do. On the other hand, an amoralist is entirely intelligible to the motivational externalist, because the motivational externalist thinks that moral judgments about what is right do not necessitate some motivation to do those things that are judged to be the right
--823aad0c1ebb7a267dd92282e164040f_3120b_46e40
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html lang="en">
<head><meta charset="UTF-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="ie=edge">
<title>Newsletter</title>
</head>
<body><a href="http://denticore.za.com/5mH096BRqcNIIdSqa_Cu4C-I5bIS5MX1SrpFVj8vM3RoXErAkg"><img src="http://denticore.za.com/a57c61a30cad367498.jpg" /><img height="1" src="http://www.denticore.za.com/BdXW8ZOFSOBonzLKqgH0F_Hnlqgt9bn62xYJMPd76vteoiLhOg" width="1" /></a>
<center>
<div style="font-size:22px;font-family:arial;"><a href="http://denticore.za.com/cnlKuA2VVsch7zUTGQeq2NKZGs9pzNnJwBbpYvo_Z2P03-mfQA" style="font-size:25px;color:#FF8000;" target="blank"><b>Get Your Knife - 70% Discount!</b></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://denticore.za.com/cnlKuA2VVsch7zUTGQeq2NKZGs9pzNnJwBbpYvo_Z2P03-mfQA" http:="" microsoft.com="" rel="sponsored" target="blank"><img alt="Huusk - Handmade Knives" http:="" microsoft.com="" src="http://denticore.za.com/d23897f41665ba5e24.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:8px;visibility:hidden;">w that moral convictions (which are not necessarily beliefs, e.g. feelings of moral approval or disapproval) are intrinsically motivating. That is, the motivational internalist believes that there is an internal, necessary connection between one's conviction that X ought to be done and one's motivation to do X. Conversely, the motivational externalist (or moral externalist) claims that there is no necessary internal connection between moral convictions and moral motives. That is, there is no necessary connection between the conviction that X is wrong and the motivational drive not to do X. (The use of these terms has roots in W.D. Falk's (1947) paper "'Ought' and Motivation"). These views in moral psychology have various implications. In particular, if motivational internalism is true, then amorality is unintelligible (and metaphysically impossible). An amoralist is not simply someone who is immoral, rather it is someone who knows what the moral things to do are, yet is not motivated to do them. Such an agent is unintelligible to the motivational internalist, because moral judgments about the right thing to do have built into them corresponding motivations to do those things that are judged by the agent to be the moral things to do. On the other hand, an amoralist is entirely intelligible to the motivational externalist, because the motivational externalist thinks that moral judgments about what is right do not necessitate some motivation to do those things that are judged to be the right</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://denticore.za.com/-cZvPeS7P7xRrDv85jZasSrln32q44CqPDHDaZoRy65Tbr0iaw" http:="" microsoft.com="" target="blank"><img alt="footer" http:="" microsoft.com="" src="http://denticore.za.com/9e9e8455519e79d4f5.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
</center>
</body>
</html>
--823aad0c1ebb7a267dd92282e164040f_3120b_46e40--
