Nope, I did not agree to the above.
My view is some statements can have both descriptive and prescriptive elements within itself.
Note the threads I had raised in this section to support this;
Do Unconditional Facts Exist
Speech Acts' Relevant to 'Is-Ought' Problem.
Brute Facts versus Constitutional Facts
Thick Ethical Concepts Posed a Challenge to 'No Ought From Is'
Hillary Putnam: Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy
What I claim is morality is normative, i.e. contain prescriptive statements as GUIDES only to be used as a standard within a Moral Framework and System.2 We agree that a factual assertion, in any context, requires empirical evidence, in order to count as a fact.
3 You claim that what we call morality constitutes a descriptive context capable of producing factual assertions for which there is empirical evidence - and that therefore there can be moral facts.
I disagree as noted.4 I claim that what we call morality constitutes principles that express value-judgements; that these principles are not factual claims with truth-value at all; and that there is and can be no empirical evidence for them.
I will continue to post whatever and whenever I like. It is your discretion to respond or not to respond to any posts.Now, I suggest we leave our discussion there, because we can only repeat our arguments and fail to persuade each other ad nauseam.
At present, with the momentum on the subject, I am doing serious research into Morality and Ethics.
The Is-Ought Dichotomy although a popular issue, as Peter Singer argued is a triviality within Morality and Ethics.
The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality
This Is-Ought Dichotomy is illusory to Morality, it is like seeing a mirage [oasis] in the desert and insisting it is real, i.e. a real problem to morality-proper.