Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

I understand JTB is not absolute and is limited.
Show me where JTB [references] is totally and absolutely useless?
Note Science is Justified True Beliefs [hypothesis] as the standard bearer of truths and knowledge.

Do you even take note of the term 'justified' within JTB?

If justified knowledge [JTB] is incorrect, then what knowledge is correct?


It is common knowledge, philosophizing currently is 90% parroting [on giant shoulders and others] and 10% by one's own argument.
Have you done a thesis before or are you familiar with how the PhDs of philosophy produced their thesis paper?

1 A justification is merely - and is nothing more than - an explanation. And your own claim that even natural science conclusions are no more than polished conjectures makes your magical belief in 'justified true belief' rather quaint.

How come you are so ignorant that justification is merely an explanation?

Scientific knowledge [JTB] is justified upon all the requirements of the scientific framework and system, which include the scientific method, peer reviews and consensus, etc.

Yes, scientific conclusions are merely 'polished conjectures' but they are highly polished and justified with a high degree of confidence level, they are true where what is credible is such conclusion can be repeated by any one who carry out the same justifications [testing, etc.]

We can state justified true moral beliefs as moral knowledge are also mere 'polished conjectures' within a moral FSK which is similar to the scientific FSK, thus generate a high level of confidence level of its veracity, where anyone can test to get the same conclusions.

2 The only features of reality that can have truth-value (being, classically, true or false) are factual assertions - linguistic expressions: 'X is the case'. So the expression 'true belief' in the JTB is a confusing misattribution.
Belief is merely the acceptance that something is the case, just as disbelief is the withholding of acceptance. And neither acceptance nor rejection have truth-value - they're just states of mind.

Note anyone can have a belief of a scientific related claim.
Such a claim can be verified to be true or false.

Linguistic expressions are merely words and meanings, albeit useful to aid communication of ideas and truths. But they do not justify the truth of reality.

3 The JTB truth-condition is that S knows that p iff p is true - which conflates a feature of reality with a description of that feature of reality. So it's a complete conceptual mess. Knowing that something is the case has nothing to do with language, and therefore nothing to do with truth or falsehood, which are exclusively linguistic properties.

This is why you have the confirmation bias and dogmatism where truth and falsehood is only limited to language. This stance exposed your very low philosophy rating.
Note my reference to scientific knowledge as JTB.

4 So much for the parroting of philosophical orthodoxies, such as that knowledge is justified true belief. Look where that gets us.

Knowledge is literally justified true beliefs, what is wrong with that?

You are the dumb one who forced JTBs within the limited linguistic perspective which was never Plato's intention.

There are three components to the traditional (“tripartite”) analysis of knowledge. According to this analysis, justified, true belief is necessary and sufficient for knowledge.

The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge:
S knows that p iff

• p is true;
  S believes that p;
  S is justified in believing that p.

The tripartite analysis of knowledge is often abbreviated as the “JTB” analysis, for “justified true belief”.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/know ... stTrueBeli

Note the critical 3rd part, i.e. 'justified.'

• justify = show or prove to be right or reasonable.

In justification we are not seeking perfect truth [impossible anyway], thus we seek the most reasonable and reliable truth.
There are approaches which avoid the Russell and Gettier counter examples, as in the following paper.

In this paper we analyze the foundations of epistemology from a constructive Brouwerian position. In particular, we consider the famous tripartite account of knowledge as justified true belief, JTB, traditionally attributed to Plato as well as counter-examples by Russell and Gettier. We show that from an intuitionistic perspective, when the constructive character of truth is taken into account, both Russell and Gettier
examples no longer refute the principle that JTB yields knowledge. Moreover, we argue that JTB yields knowledge could be accepted given some natural constructivity assumptions.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7717301155

5 You say that the belief that there are moral facts is a justified true belief, empirically verifiable. And yet you have produced not even one example of a moral fact. Every one turns out to be a moral judgement, belief or opinion. Nul point.

Have done that a '1000' times. You are too blinded by your confirmation bias, dogmatism and bigotry to understand my argument.
It is not my responsible to convince you or my points, thus I'll leave you to wallow in your sewage pool of confirmation bias, dogmatism and bigotry.

I've explained wny the JTB theory of knowledge is wrong. But any theory that takes knowledge to be an abstract thing of some kind is already furkling down the metaphysical rabbit hole.

Sadly, I understand your argument onlly too well. And it's crap. And, sadly, you've produced evidence for the existence of not even one moral fact. Your best shot - humans ought not to kill humans - is patently not a fact, but merely a moral assertion.

Nul point.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I've explained wny the JTB theory of knowledge is wrong. But any theory that takes knowledge to be an abstract thing of some kind is already furkling down the metaphysical rabbit hole.

I have argued, scientific knowledge is based on beliefs that are justified to be true and scientific knowledge is not all about abstract things.
Scientists begin with hypothesis, conjecturals and beliefs and these become scientific knowledge when they are justified to be true in compliance with the requirements of the scientific FSK.

Legal facts, e.g. "X is a convicted murderer" is first based on beliefs by various people and was justified to be true via the legal FSK, i.e. the processes of enacted laws, the police, prosecutors, courts, judge, jury.

It is the same with any other facts [e.g. moral facts] which are concluded as justified true belief when processed via its specific FSK [moral FSK].

As I had argued, in fact, your fact-in-itself is ultimately illusory,
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31591
and your insistence upon it is delusional.

[Peter Holmes]

I've explained wny the JTB theory of knowledge is wrong. But any theory that takes knowledge to be an abstract thing of some kind is already furkling down the metaphysical rabbit hole.

I have argued, scientific knowledge is based on beliefs that are justified to be true and scientific knowledge is not all about abstract things.
Scientists begin with hypothesis, conjecturals and beliefs and these become scientific knowledge when they are justified to be true in compliance with the requirements of the scientific FSK.

Legal facts, e.g. "X is a convicted murderer" is first based on beliefs by various people and was justified to be true via the legal FSK, i.e. the processes of enacted laws, the police, prosecutors, courts, judge, jury.

It is the same with any other facts [e.g. moral facts] which are concluded as justified true belief when processed via its specific FSK [moral FSK].

As I had argued, in fact, your fact-in-itself is ultimately illusory,
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31591
and your insistence upon it is delusional.

We know what you've argued, and I've pointed out why the argument is unsound. I've also pointed out that the 'justification' in which you place so much faith can be nothing more than an explanation for thinking a fact exists or an assertion is true.

That what we call a fact exists within a descriptive context is trivially true and inconsequential, because its existence doesn't depend on the descriptive context. For example, that water is H2O doesn't depend on the 'chemistry FSK' - and the claim that it does is ridiculous. A description doesn't make the thing being described exist. It just does or doesn't exist.

You claim that there are moral facts in some way analogous to the way that there are chemistry facts. And you, along with all other moral realists, have failed to justify that claim. It's a big, blank zero, nul point. So the rational position is to abandon the claim. And your - and their - refusal to do so is evidence of massive cognitive dissonance.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I've explained wny the JTB theory of knowledge is wrong. But any theory that takes knowledge to be an abstract thing of some kind is already furkling down the metaphysical rabbit hole.

I have argued, scientific knowledge is based on beliefs that are justified to be true and scientific knowledge is not all about abstract things.
Scientists begin with hypothesis, conjecturals and beliefs and these become scientific knowledge when they are justified to be true in compliance with the requirements of the scientific FSK.

Legal facts, e.g. "X is a convicted murderer" is first based on beliefs by various people and was justified to be true via the legal FSK, i.e. the processes of enacted laws, the police, prosecutors, courts, judge, jury.

It is the same with any other facts [e.g. moral facts] which are concluded as justified true belief when processed via its specific FSK [moral FSK].

As I had argued, in fact, your fact-in-itself is ultimately illusory,
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31591
and your insistence upon it is delusional.

We know what you've argued, and I've pointed out why the argument is unsound. I've also pointed out that the 'justification' in which you place so much faith can be nothing more than an explanation for thinking a fact exists or an assertion is true.

Nope!
You don't have a complete understanding [not necessary agree with] of the principles I relied upon to argue my case.

On the other hand I have understood [but not agree with] the principles you relied upon. If not, let me know what I am missing.

That what we call a fact exists within a descriptive context is trivially true and inconsequential, because its existence doesn't depend on the descriptive context.

For example, that water is H2O doesn't depend on the 'chemistry FSK' - and the claim that it does is ridiculous. A description doesn't make the thing being described exist. It just does or doesn't exist.

I have already stated there is a difference between the fact-that-is-described from the description of that fact.
Yes I agree the description do not make the thing being described exists.

Even verifying and justifying a fact do not make fact exists but merely representing as close as possible that-which-in-the-fact.

But note, in an ULTIMATE perspective, there is no fact-in-itself, i.e. the fact [feature of reality] do not exists by itself independently of human conditions and the rest of reality, since ALL are part and parcel of all-there-is, i.e. reality.

What I have stated whatever that exists, i.e. the fact or feature-of-reality do not exists independent of the human conditions.
Don't confuse not-independent as opposite of "dependent" in this case.
Not-independent means the object exists as part and parcel with humans, i.e. entangles with humans and the Universe.

It is not the case that objects/things [the fact or feature-of-reality] are dependent of each other, but rather they spontaneously emerge as that-which-exists to be described by humans with descriptive statements.

[A] You need to understand [not necessary agree with] the above point, else, you will always straw-man my points.

You claim that there are moral facts in some way analogous to the way that there are chemistry facts.
And you, along with all other moral realists, have failed to justify that claim. It's a big, blank zero, nul point. So the rational position is to abandon the claim. And your - and their - refusal to do so is evidence of massive cognitive dissonance.

Btw, which moral realist has claim moral facts are analogous to chemistry facts?
If you cannot do so, don't group me into 'other moral realists'.

As stated above, you need to understand my point note A above, else your rejection of my views is baseless.

In addition, I have no intention to ensure you are convinced you of my current conclusions where my ultimate conclusions is still a long way to go.

[Skepdick]

I have already stated there is a difference between the fact-that-is-described from the description of that fact.

This distinction is utterly pointless.

If there's a difference between the fact and its description, why don't you just capture the difference in the description of the fact?

[Peter Holmes]

I have argued, scientific knowledge is based on beliefs that are justified to be true and scientific knowledge is not all about abstract things.
Scientists begin with hypothesis, conjecturals and beliefs and these become scientific knowledge when they are justified to be true in compliance with the requirements of the scientific FSK.

Legal facts, e.g. "X is a convicted murderer" is first based on beliefs by various people and was justified to be true via the legal FSK, i.e. the processes of enacted laws, the police, prosecutors, courts, judge, jury.

It is the same with any other facts [e.g. moral facts] which are concluded as justified true belief when processed via its specific FSK [moral FSK].

As I had argued, in fact, your fact-in-itself is ultimately illusory,
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31591
and your insistence upon it is delusional.

We know what you've argued, and I've pointed out why the argument is unsound. I've also pointed out that the 'justification' in which you place so much faith can be nothing more than an explanation for thinking a fact exists or an assertion is true.

Nope!
You don't have a complete understanding [not necessary agree with] of the principles I relied upon to argue my case.

On the other hand I have understood [but not agree with] the principles you relied upon. If not, let me know what I am missing.

That what we call a fact exists within a descriptive context is trivially true and inconsequential, because its existence doesn't depend on the descriptive context.

For example, that water is H2O doesn't depend on the 'chemistry FSK' - and the claim that it does is ridiculous. A description doesn't make the thing being described exist. It just does or doesn't exist.

I have already stated there is a difference between the fact-that-is-described from the description of that fact.
Yes I agree the description do not make the thing being described exists.

Even verifying and justifying a fact do not make fact exists but merely representing as close as possible that-which-in-the-fact.

But note, in an ULTIMATE perspective, there is no fact-in-itself, i.e. the fact [feature of reality] do not exists by itself independently of human conditions and the rest of reality, since ALL are part and parcel of all-there-is, i.e. reality.

What I have stated whatever that exists, i.e. the fact or feature-of-reality do not exists independent of the human conditions.
Don't confuse not-independent as opposite of "dependent" in this case.
Not-independent means the object exists as part and parcel with humans, i.e. entangles with humans and the Universe.

It is not the case that objects/things [the fact or feature-of-reality] are dependent of each other, but rather they spontaneously emerge as that-which-exists to be described by humans with descriptive statements.

[A] You need to understand [not necessary agree with] the above point, else, you will always straw-man my points.

You claim that there are moral facts in some way analogous to the way that there are chemistry facts.
And you, along with all other moral realists, have failed to justify that claim. It's a big, blank zero, nul point. So the rational position is to abandon the claim. And your - and their - refusal to do so is evidence of massive cognitive dissonance.

Btw, which moral realist has claim moral facts are analogous to chemistry facts?
If you cannot do so, don't group me into 'other moral realists'.

As stated above, you need to understand my point note A above, else your rejection of my views is baseless.

In addition, I have no intention to ensure you are convinced you of my current conclusions where my ultimate conclusions is still a long way to go.

So, here's your claim that I must understand, to avoid straw-manning you:

'It is not the case that objects/things [the fact or feature-of-reality] are dependent of each other, but rather they spontaneously emerge as that-which-exists to be described by humans with descriptive statements.' [Sic.]

Perhaps you find this way of putting it comforting: facts spontaneously emerge as things-that-exist, which humans can describe. And perhaps you think this is a radically different account from mine: facts are features of reality that are or were the case - or descriptions thereof.

Okay. So now, moral facts, by your definition, 'must spontaneously emerge as things-that exist, which humans can describe'.

And you rightly insist that, like all facts, moral facts (that spontaneously emerge as things-that-exist) must be demonstrated empirically.

So your task is unchanged. You have to demonstrate empirically the existence of even one moral fact - a spontanously emergent thing-that-exists that can be described by humans.

All this cod-phenomenological blather changes absolutely nothing.

Oh - so your 'ultimate conclusions' are a long way off. That's a development. Until now, you've been insisting that there are empirically demonstrable moral facts, so that morality is objective. That was your conclusion - though you've never shown its soundness, because it's incoherent.

Perhaps the penny is about to drop.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have argued, scientific knowledge is based on beliefs that are justified to be true and scientific knowledge is not all about abstract things.
Scientists begin with hypothesis, conjecturals and beliefs and these become scientific knowledge when they are justified to be true in compliance with the requirements of the scientific FSK.

Legal facts, e.g. "X is a convicted murderer" is first based on beliefs by various people and was justified to be true via the legal FSK, i.e. the processes of enacted laws, the police, prosecutors, courts, judge, jury.

It is the same with any other facts [e.g. moral facts] which are concluded as justified true belief when processed via its specific FSK [moral FSK].

As I had argued, in fact, your fact-in-itself is ultimately illusory,
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31591
and your insistence upon it is delusional.

We know what you've argued, and I've pointed out why the argument is unsound. I've also pointed out that the 'justification' in which you place so much faith can be nothing more than an explanation for thinking a fact exists or an assertion is true.

That what we call a fact exists within a descriptive context is trivially true and inconsequential, because its existence doesn't depend on the descriptive context. For example, that water is H2O doesn't depend on the 'chemistry FSK' - and the claim that it does is ridiculous. A description doesn't make the thing being described exist. It just does or doesn't exist.

You claim that there are moral facts in some way analogous to the way that there are chemistry facts. And you, along with all other moral realists, have failed to justify that claim. It's a big, blank zero, nul point. So the rational position is to abandon the claim. And your - and their - refusal to do so is evidence of massive cognitive dissonance.

I had just posted this;

As with the above,
moral elements [no killing, slavery, rape, incest, etc.] are intuited by humans,
when a moral intuition [verifying the moral fact] is verified and justified empirically . . .

Give any specific example of how a moral edict/judgment/whatever-you-might-want-to-call-it would be "justified empirically"

I am not referring to any personal nor groups' moral edict nor moral judgment.

To be precise what need to be verified and justified empirically and philosophically are the moral facts which are to be used as moral standards within a moral FSK.

Here is an analogy;

• 1. ALL humans are 'programmed' to breathe else they die.
  2. Biologically, all humans ought to breathe, else they die.
  3. The imperative to breathe can be tested empirically via biological experiments.
  4. The above 'ought_ness to breathe' is represented by the human physical and neural matter, physiological and mental mechanisms and processes.

"Ought" in the above do not refer to a rule that is enforceable by any external authority, rather 'ought' in this sense = proper, correct, in order to be in alignment to being-human.

The moral fact [ought_ness] 'no human ought to kill humans' can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically just like the above procedures and ultimately it must be reducible to its physical referent.
Note there are many other approaches to justify the existence of the above moral fact.

I have already explain reasonably in many instances how the moral facts, re killing humans and slavery could be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

The above is sufficient and reasonable for the above purpose, but it is still a long way to a consummated answer which I am keeping up my sleeve.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, here's your claim that I must understand, to avoid straw-manning you:

'It is not the case that objects/things [the fact or feature-of-reality] are dependent of each other, but rather they spontaneously emerge as that-which-exists to be described by humans with descriptive statements.' [Sic.]

Perhaps you find this way of putting it comforting: facts spontaneously emerge as things-that-exist, which humans can describe. And perhaps you think this is a radically different account from mine: facts are features of reality that are or were the case - or descriptions thereof.

Okay. So now, moral facts, by your definition, 'must spontaneously emerge as things-that exist, which humans can describe'.

And you rightly insist that, like all facts, moral facts (that spontaneously emerge as things-that-exist) must be demonstrated empirically.

So your task is unchanged. You have to demonstrate empirically the existence of even one moral fact - a spontanously emergent thing-that-exists that can be described by humans.

All this cod-phenomenological blather changes absolutely nothing.

Oh - so your 'ultimate conclusions' are a long way off. That's a development. Until now, you've been insisting that there are empirically demonstrable moral facts, so that morality is objective. That was your conclusion - though you've never shown its soundness, because it's incoherent.

Perhaps the penny is about to drop.

You are ignorant of what phenomenology is.
My views are not precisely phenomenology, rather it is empirical realism, i.e. as I had always stated it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
What you deemed as ultimate 'fact' [linguistically] cannot be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

I had just posted this;

As with the above,
moral elements [no killing, slavery, rape, incest, etc.] are intuited by humans,
when a moral intuition [verifying the moral fact] is verified and justified empirically . . .

Give any specific example of how a moral edict/judgment/whatever-you-might-want-to-call-it would be "justified empirically"

I am not referring to any personal nor groups' moral edict nor moral judgment.

To be precise what need to be verified and justified empirically and philosophically are the moral facts which are to be used as moral standards within a moral FSK.

Here is an analogy;

• 1. ALL humans are 'programmed' to breathe else they die.
  2. Biologically, all humans ought to breathe, else they die.
  3. The imperative to breathe can be tested empirically via biological experiments.
  4. The above 'ought_ness to breathe' is represented by the human physical and neural matter, physiological and mental mechanisms and processes.

"Ought" in the above do not refer to a rule that is enforceable by any external authority, rather 'ought' in this sense = proper, correct, in order to be in alignment to being-human.

The moral fact [ought_ness] 'no human ought to kill humans' can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically just like the above procedures and ultimately it must be reducible to its physical referent.
Note there are many other approaches to justify the existence of the above moral fact.

I have already explain reasonably in many instances how the moral facts, re killing humans and slavery could be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

The above is sufficient and reasonable for the above purpose, but it is still a long way to a consummated answer which I am keeping up my sleeve.

Perhaps the penny is about to drop.

Note your philosophical foundation is grounded on shaky foundations and so weak, i.e. dogmatically stuck with analytic philosophy inherited from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists.

[Peter Holmes]

So, here's your claim that I must understand, to avoid straw-manning you:

'It is not the case that objects/things [the fact or feature-of-reality] are dependent of each other, but rather they spontaneously emerge as that-which-exists to be described by humans with descriptive statements.' [Sic.]

Perhaps you find this way of putting it comforting: facts spontaneously emerge as things-that-exist, which humans can describe. And perhaps you think this is a radically different account from mine: facts are features of reality that are or were the case - or descriptions thereof.

Okay. So now, moral facts, by your definition, 'must spontaneously emerge as things-that exist, which humans can describe'.

And you rightly insist that, like all facts, moral facts (that spontaneously emerge as things-that-exist) must be demonstrated empirically.

So your task is unchanged. You have to demonstrate empirically the existence of even one moral fact - a spontanously emergent thing-that-exists that can be described by humans.

All this cod-phenomenological blather changes absolutely nothing.

Oh - so your 'ultimate conclusions' are a long way off. That's a development. Until now, you've been insisting that there are empirically demonstrable moral facts, so that morality is objective. That was your conclusion - though you've never shown its soundness, because it's incoherent.

Perhaps the penny is about to drop.

You are ignorant of what phenomenology is.
My views are not precisely phenomenology, rather it is empirical realism, i.e. as I had always stated it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
What you deemed as ultimate 'fact' [linguistically] cannot be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

I had just posted this;

As with the above,
moral elements [no killing, slavery, rape, incest, etc.] are intuited by humans,
when a moral intuition [verifying the moral fact] is verified and justified empirically . . .

Give any specific example of how a moral edict/judgment/whatever-you-might-want-to-call-it would be "justified empirically"

I am not referring to any personal nor groups' moral edict nor moral judgment.

To be precise what need to be verified and justified empirically and philosophically are the moral facts which are to be used as moral standards within a moral FSK.

Here is an analogy;

• 1. ALL humans are 'programmed' to breathe else they die.
  2. Biologically, all humans ought to breathe, else they die.
  3. The imperative to breathe can be tested empirically via biological experiments.
  4. The above 'ought_ness to breathe' is represented by the human physical and neural matter, physiological and mental mechanisms and processes.

"Ought" in the above do not refer to a rule that is enforceable by any external authority, rather 'ought' in this sense = proper, correct, in order to be in alignment to being-human.

The moral fact [ought_ness] 'no human ought to kill humans' can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically just like the above procedures and ultimately it must be reducible to its physical referent.
Note there are many other approaches to justify the existence of the above moral fact.

I have already explain reasonably in many instances how the moral facts, re killing humans and slavery could be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

The above is sufficient and reasonable for the above purpose, but it is still a long way to a consummated answer which I am keeping up my sleeve.

Perhaps the penny is about to drop.

Note your philosophical foundation is grounded on shaky foundations and so weak, i.e. dogmatically stuck with analytic philosophy inherited from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists.

1 We can use modal 'ought to' and 'should' morally or non-morally.

2 If a modal is used non-morally, the assertion can have no moral significance.

3 The claim 'humans ought to breathe or they die' is non-moral, so it can't be a moral assertion, asserting a moral fact.

[Skepdick]

1 We can use modal 'ought to' and 'should' morally or non-morally.

2 If a modal is used non-morally, the assertion can have no moral significance.

3 The claim 'humans ought to breathe or they die' is non-moral, so it can't be a moral assertion, asserting a moral fact.

That's just you opinion.

[Atla]

...
Perhaps the penny is about to drop.

I keep wondering as this is all rather puzzling, what if the penny can never drop because they can't comprehend the concept of objectivity? Maybe there is a level of cognition, below which people typically don't develop and use the subjective/objective dichotomy, that would be too much for them, too abstract, too complicated?

[Skepdick]

Maybe there is a level of cognition, below which people typically don't develop and use the subjective/objective dichotomy, that would be too much for them, too abstract, too complicated?

But "objectivity" is mind-independent, whereas abstraction is what minds do!

So surely "objectivity" is about concreteness, not about abstractness.

Or did you get lost in the forest of your own bullshit?

[Atla]

Maybe there is a level of cognition, below which people typically don't develop and use the subjective/objective dichotomy, that would be too much for them, too abstract, too complicated?

But "objectivity" is mind-independent, whereas abstraction is what minds do!

So surely "objectivity" is about concreteness, not about abstractness.

Or did you get lost in the forest of your own bullshit?

Wasn't necessarily referring to you, your problem is more general, you literally lack the ability to understand anything. That's even more puzzling.. How is that even possible?

[Skepdick]

Wasn't necessarily referring to you,

Did I say you were?

your problem is more general, you literally lack the ability to understand anything. That's even more puzzling.. How is that even possible?

I understand.

Shame. You'll come around.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am not referring to any personal nor groups' moral edict nor moral judgment.

To be precise what need to be verified and justified empirically and philosophically are the moral facts which are to be used as moral standards within a moral FSK.

Here is an analogy;

• 1. ALL humans are 'programmed' to breathe else they die.
  2. Biologically, all humans ought to breathe, else they die.
  3. The imperative to breathe can be tested empirically via biological experiments.
  4. The above 'ought_ness to breathe' is represented by the human physical and neural matter, physiological and mental mechanisms and processes.

"Ought" in the above do not refer to a rule that is enforceable by any external authority, rather 'ought' in this sense = proper, correct, in order to be in alignment to being-human.

The moral fact [ought_ness] 'no human ought to kill humans' can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically just like the above procedures and ultimately it must be reducible to its physical referent.
Note there are many other approaches to justify the existence of the above moral fact.

I have already explain reasonably in many instances how the moral facts, re killing humans and slavery could be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

The above is sufficient and reasonable for the above purpose, but it is still a long way to a consummated answer which I am keeping up my sleeve.

1 We can use modal 'ought to' and 'should' morally or non-morally.

2 If a modal is used non-morally, the assertion can have no moral significance.

3 The claim 'humans ought to breathe or they die' is non-moral, so it can't be a moral assertion, asserting a moral fact.

Note I mentioned "analogy" in the above.
In the case of "ought to breathe" that is the biological modal of ought-to as verified and justified within the biological FSK.

The claim 'humans ought to breathe or they die' is definitely a biological modal of ought-to or the biological FSK's ought-to, thus CANNOT be a moral element or moral ought.
I did not claim "humans ought to breathe or they die" is a moral ought.
This biological ought is merely to be used as an analogy to a moral ought.

Thus analogous to the above, for any moral ought, it has to be verified and justified within a moral FSK, e.g.
the moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK.
As I had explained many times, the above moral fact is represented by its specific mental states and physical referent.