I and others have repeatedly explained the mistakes in your argument. For example:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:00 amShouting from being trapped within your 'silo' is not about the real world.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 6:34 pm What we call objectivity is sticking to the facts.
What we call facts are states-of-affairs, or descriptions of states-of-affairs, that are or were the case.
So there can be moral objectivity only if there are moral states-of affairs - if, for example, the moral rightness of capital punishment is a state-of-affairs, or the moral wrongness of eating animals. And, of course, those aren't states-of-affairs at all - and to think they are is an obvious misunderstanding.
Because there are states-of-affairs that can be described by physics, there are 'physics facts'. But there are no such states-of-affairs that moral assertions describe. So morality can't be objective - how ever desperately moral objectivists want it to be.
Your definition of 'what is fact' is too archaic and shallow which is inherited from the bastardized ideology of the logical positivists and those of analytic philosophy.
What is fact?
I have quoted this a '1000' times.
What you are arguing against is the typical moral claims, from theists who made claims of moral facts from a God; platonists who claim there are moral universals; various people who make subjective moral claims and judgments, i.e. murder is wrong, abortion is wrong, capital punishment is wrong and the likes. I agree these are not moral facts per se but merely opinions and belief.
What I am claiming is there are moral facts within a Moral Framework and System which are justified as credible facts like facts from Science.
These moral facts are states-of-affairs within the brain of the moral agent as represented by the referent of various moral neural algorithms which can be verified like scientific and psychological facts.
From this perspective moral facts are objective.
In addition, I don't believe you understand what is objectivity-proper.
According to Mathew Kramers who wrote one specialized book on 'Moral Objectivity' where what is objectivity-proper must fulfill 7 dimensions below;
I have stated the above many times, and I don't think you will every grasp them given your dogmatism and confirmation bias to your bastardized ideas on 'what is morality'.
- Ontological (Chapters 2–5)
2 Determinate correctness
3 Uniform applicability
Epistemic (Chapters 6–7)
5 Transindividual concurrence
Semantic (Chapter -8)
'These moral facts are states-of-affairs within the brain of the moral agent as represented by the referent of various moral neural algorithms which can be verified like scientific and psychological facts.'
This is a simple misunderstanding. Brain-states that produce certain behaviour may be facts - states-of-affairs that exist - but they aren't moral facts. They're just facts - features of our brains.
Your argument is: we're wired to think, say, killing people is morally wrong; therefore it's a fact that killing people is morally wrong. (Impressive reasoning.)