What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Honestly - it's stupefying. Calling moral objectivists.

Please demonstrate the entailment of a moral assertion from a factual assertion: 'if A, then B' - or 'in any situation in which A is the case, then B is the case', or 'if A is true, then B is true' - and so on.

Hint: if what you propose is supposed to be a factual entailment, then denying the consequent must produce a contradiction.

For example, here's a dud: People need to breathe; therefore it's morally wrong to prevent people from breathing.

But if you like it, please demonstrate the entailment.

I have already corrected your fallacy, i.e. you are equivocating and conflating 'your' unique facts with moral facts each being justified from their respective Framework and System of Knowledge.

I have pointed out you are too dogmatic in being stuck with the ultimately unrealistic knowledge and fact from Philosophical Realism and semantics.

You have not countered my argument why there should not be different types of facts justified from different Framework and System of Knowledge.

It is only stupefying to you because you lack the dept and width of philosophical and other knowledge to open to understand [not necessary agree with] my counter points.

Worst you do not understand what 'Morality-proper' and 'objectivity' is about in relation to your OP.

It is stupefying you are insisting to avoid the necessary rigor in such a philosophical discussion.

Therefore to clear your 'stupefying' you need to upgrade your philosophical competence first.

To clear the first hurdle you need to trace the philosophical "genealogy" [the lineage] of how you arrive at your current idea of "what is morality" and "what is objectivity".

I note that you don't provide an example of a factual assertion entailing a moral assertion. Perhaps another objectivist here can do so. But meantime, here's the situation as I see it - and what you need to do.

A fact is either a state-of-affairs, or a description of a state-of-affairs. And objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So facts are right at the heart of 'what could make morality objective?'

You say that, because there are different 'frameworks and systems of knowledge', there are different types of facts. And you say that, in the 'moral framework and system of knowledge', there are moral facts.

Please give an example of what you call a moral fact, and show why it is a fact, within what you call the moral framework and system of knowledge. So far, I don't believe you have done this clearly and convincingly.

Hint: if you want to cite a premise such as 'humans are programmed to survive' as something like a principle in the moral framework and system of knowledge, you have to show how that entails what you call a moral fact.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yeah but did YOU commit such evil acts back when you were a religious fanatic?

Note my earlier assertion;

• Such ideology of moral objectivity emerged as secular and theistic moral commands that influence SOME believers to commit all sorts of evil [genocide to petty evil acts] on non-believers.

I was never religious at all thus do not belong to that 'SOME' group, thus your question is irrelevant to me.

However your questioning as above indicate you doubt my assertion, so to test the truth of my assertion, just do the test I proposed yourself, i.e.

• To confirm the above as a fact;
  Go to a busy square in Kabul, then burn the Quran.
  Then you know the answer just before you become pieces of meat and bones.

Give me the results of the test next week.

I didn't doubt your assertion, I asked whether you committed evil acts when you were a religious fanatic.

You said you were an avid Vedantists (the wrong kind) for a long time. You still have an agressive, obsessive fanaticism in you. To fix two problems at once, you should go to Kabul, equipped with a bomb, burn the Quran, and push the button when they try to mob you.

Vedantists are not necessary religious.
Basically Vedanta is a School of Philosophy in general.

Vedanta or Uttara Mīmāṃsā is one of the six (āstika) schools of Hindu philosophy.
-wiki

I have nothing to do with those who set up religion upon whatever principles of Vedanta they selected.

Religion is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements.
-wiki

[Veritas Aequitas]

Honestly - it's stupefying. Calling moral objectivists.

Please demonstrate the entailment of a moral assertion from a factual assertion: 'if A, then B' - or 'in any situation in which A is the case, then B is the case', or 'if A is true, then B is true' - and so on.

Hint: if what you propose is supposed to be a factual entailment, then denying the consequent must produce a contradiction.

For example, here's a dud: People need to breathe; therefore it's morally wrong to prevent people from breathing.

But if you like it, please demonstrate the entailment.

I have already corrected your fallacy, i.e. you are equivocating and conflating 'your' unique facts with moral facts each being justified from their respective Framework and System of Knowledge.

I have pointed out you are too dogmatic in being stuck with the ultimately unrealistic knowledge and fact from Philosophical Realism and semantics.

You have not countered my argument why there should not be different types of facts justified from different Framework and System of Knowledge.

It is only stupefying to you because you lack the dept and width of philosophical and other knowledge to open to understand [not necessary agree with] my counter points.

Worst you do not understand what 'Morality-proper' and 'objectivity' is about in relation to your OP.

It is stupefying you are insisting to avoid the necessary rigor in such a philosophical discussion.

Therefore to clear your 'stupefying' you need to upgrade your philosophical competence first.

To clear the first hurdle you need to trace the philosophical "genealogy" [the lineage] of how you arrive at your current idea of "what is morality" and "what is objectivity".

I note that you don't provide an example of a factual assertion entailing a moral assertion. Perhaps another objectivist here can do so. But meantime, here's the situation as I see it - and what you need to do.

A fact is either a state-of-affairs, or a description of a state-of-affairs. And objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So facts are right at the heart of 'what could make morality objective?'

A Moral Objectivist who rely on absolute-objectivity will definitely not be able to justify his position because it is not fundamentally-realistic in the first place.
The moral objectivist is using the same principle as you do for your fact or 'state-of-affairs' in the ultimate senses.
Therefore when you defeat the Moral Objectivist of absolute-objectivity, you are [ignorantly] in fact defeating your own arguments.

You say that, because there are different 'frameworks and systems of knowledge', there are different types of facts. And you say that, in the 'moral framework and system of knowledge', there are moral facts.

Please give an example of what you call a moral fact, and show why it is a fact, within what you call the moral framework and system of knowledge. So far, I don't believe you have done this clearly and convincingly.

Hint: if you want to cite a premise such as 'humans are programmed to survive' as something like a principle in the moral framework and system of knowledge, you have to show how that entails what you call a moral fact.

My position is that of an empirical Moral realist, i.e. relying on relative-objectivity as verified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.

I had defined 'moral facts' [relative objectivity] as facts that are justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning from a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

I have demonstrated what is such a moral fact many times in terms of breathing, killing, slavery, etc.

The most obvious is;

1. All humans breathe - biological and empirical fact.
2. All humans must breathe else they die - biological, empirical and moral fact.
3. No human ought to stop another human being from breathing, else the person will die. - moral fact.

This objective moral fact [3] will be embedded as a moral objective [as a GUIDE only] within the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

The point is when we establish a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics we need to establish moral objectives within its System to ensure its efficiency.
The justified moral fact [among others] is one the necessary moral objectives to be set.

There are many reasons how the moral fact [3] is justified to be the moral objective.

Example, the imperative principle of universality.
If the alternative,
"ALL humans ought to stop another human being from breathing" would in theory result in the extinction of the human species.

Another is the Principle of Basic Human Dignity that is generic human value common with all humans.

There are many others which I would not go into details.
But the outcome is moral fact[3] is recognized a such within the said Framework and System of Morality and System.

Note within a Legal Framework and System [F&S], the legal fact is,
"No human ought to murder another human"
else,
the penalty is death for some legal F&S.

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the United States, currently used by 28 states, the federal government, and the military.
-wiki

Who is to deny the above is a legal fact?
In this case, what is the justification for the above to be fact?
It is only a legal fact because it is derived from a Legal Framework and System established by political members.
There are no sound universal justification for the existence of the above legal fact.

At least I am providing justifications [2 above] and claim there are many other justifications for a moral fact to be such from within a Moral Framework and System.

[Skepdick]

What will happen to those [individuals and groups] who are ignorant of the fact of the Covid19's virus?

People die. Obviously.

You don't need a "moral framework" to tell you that; or tell you what to do. Humans have been doing the right thing for ever and ever.

When people who cough start dying our brains are really really good at correlation and over-reaction. The sick get socially ostracised, so the rest can live.

Some of those rituals persist to this day. Do some homework on WHY Muslims have rules for islamic burial.
Those rituals are born out of ethical necessity - they minimise exposure to the corpse, which may or may not be contageous. It reduces transmission of diseases.

It's good ol' hygiene.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What will happen to those [individuals and groups] who are ignorant of the fact of the Covid19's virus?

People die. Obviously.

You don't need a "moral framework" to tell you that; or tell you what to do. Humans have been doing the right thing for ever and ever.

When people who cough start dying our brains are really really good at correlation and over-reaction.

The sick get ostracised, so the rest can live.

Don't need to tell and doing the right thing for ever and ever? Sure?
Despite enacting laws to prevent the spread of the Covid19's virus, there are still so many protesting and disobeying all over the world.

We need Framework and System so that activities are more systematic and thus more efficient.

[Skepdick]

Don't need to tell and doing the right thing for ever and ever? Sure?
Despite enacting laws to prevent the spread of the Covid19's virus, there are still so many protesting and disobeying all over the world.

We need Framework and System so that activities are more systematic and thus more efficient.

You are knee-jerking.

The recommendation from medical practitioners right from the beginning was what?
Wash your hands, maintain distance. Don't touch your face. Don't touch other people. Wear a mask.

These rituals are good hygienic practices not just against COVID but any disease which transmits by direct contact.

Now take three steps back and observe that a whole lot of cultures have internalised all of those rituals as part of their daily lives.
Voluntarily and without laws having to be enforced - they have become social norms. This is as systemic as it gets - it's embedded in the minds of individuals.

Such societies have built-in safety mechanisms for reducing the risk of transmission. That is what religion is - a collection of ethical rituals.

When the world changes some rituals become superfluous and obsolete.

[Atla]

Vedantists are not necessary religious.
Basically Vedanta is a School of Philosophy in general.

Vedanta or Uttara Mīmāṃsā is one of the six (āstika) schools of Hindu philosophy.
-wiki

I have nothing to do with those who set up religion upon whatever principles of Vedanta they selected.

Religion is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements.
-wiki

Oh well, then it got this bad for you even without religion.

[Sculptor]

NOPE, framework of knowledge are not theories.

Then Veritas Aequitas, when shown to be wrong, denies he said "NOPE, framework of knowledge are not theories."
Then Veritas Aequitas, has the temerity to call me stupid!
LMFHO

Yes, "teacher" that is a fact.
I have learned from you and PantFlasher the best defense is to attack and in both your strategies rely on intellectual violence and straw_mans based on ignorance, stupidity, narrow and shallow perspectives.

Until you and PantFlasher approach to counter my arguments amiably with sound justified counters, it is an eye for an eye.

lol

[Peter Holmes]

I have demonstrated what is such a moral fact many times in terms of breathing, killing, slavery, etc.

The most obvious is;
1. All humans breathe - biological and empirical fact.
2. All humans must breathe else they die - biological, empirical and moral fact.
3. No human ought to stop another human being from breathing, else the person will die. - moral fact.

This objective moral fact [3] will be embedded as a moral objective [as a GUIDE only] within the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Here's what's wrong with your example.

1 The claim 'all humans must breathe else they die' just means 'if humans don't breathe, they die' - and that is not a moral assertion. It has no moral implication whatsoever, so it can't be a moral fact. You merely say it is, with no justification - as always.

2 So your argument is this: if humans don't breathe, they die; therefore it's morally wrong to stop another human breathing.

And that simply does not follow as a deduction. The fact does not entail the moral opinion. And that can be demonstrated by negating the moral opinion, as follows.

If humans don't breathe, they die; therefore it's not morally wrong to stop another human breathing. This is not a logical contradiction - which means the original isn't a logical deduction.

I'm wondering how long you can keep this up. You haven't demonstrated what you say you have, and you ignore clear demonstrations of the unsoundness of your argument. And your deluded appeal to 'the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics' is exposed as vacuous at first contact with any attempt to demonstrate a moral fact. You just can't do it, because there are no moral facts. They're in your dweems.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have demonstrated what is such a moral fact many times in terms of breathing, killing, slavery, etc.

The most obvious is;
1. All humans breathe - biological and empirical fact.
2. All humans must breathe else they die - biological, empirical and moral fact.
3. No human ought to stop another human being from breathing, else the person will die. - moral fact.

This objective moral fact [3] will be embedded as a moral objective [as a GUIDE only] within the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Here's what's wrong with your example.

1 The claim 'all humans must breathe else they die' just means 'if humans don't breathe, they die' - and that is not a moral assertion. It has no moral implication whatsoever, so it can't be a moral fact. You merely say it is, with no justification - as always.

2 So your argument is this: if humans don't breathe, they die; therefore it's morally wrong to stop another human breathing.

And that simply does not follow as a deduction. The fact does not entail the moral opinion. And that can be demonstrated by negating the moral opinion, as follows.

You are still getting it.

Are scientific facts based on deduction?
it is an obvious NO!!
but they are still facts because they are justified from the Scientific Framework and System based on empirical evidences, induction and reasoning.

Why are you not making a fuss about scientific facts which are objective since you're are insisting facts must be derived from deduction.

Btw, just as productive scientists don't give a f..k with Hume's Problem of Induction, productive moral philosophers do not give a f..k with Hume's 'no is from ought' and your deductive fact and state-of-affairs which are ultimately unrealistic.
I suggest you do more research into the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics to understand [not necessary agree with] what I am getting at.

If humans don't breathe, they die; therefore it's not morally wrong to stop another human breathing. This is not a logical contradiction - which means the original isn't a logical deduction.

Note my point above, facts don't have to come from deduction.
The moral fact I presented is derived from a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics based on empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.
You ignored the philosophical reasoning and basis of justification, e.g. universality, etc. and did not counter why they are not relevant.
Your mind don't seem to click with how morality-proper work and its need for a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Btw, do you understand what is Normative Ethics.

Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. It is the branch of philosophical ethics that investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking.
-wiki

To enable Normative Ethics to progress efficiently we need a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics to extract the moral facts to ground the necessary moral standards.
This has nothing to do with your analytics views on 'fact' 'state-of-affairs' etc.

I'm wondering how long you can keep this up. You haven't demonstrated what you say you have, and you ignore clear demonstrations of the unsoundness of your argument. And your deluded appeal to 'the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics' is exposed as vacuous at first contact with any attempt to demonstrate a moral fact. You just can't do it, because there are no moral facts. They're in your dweems.

I have demonstrated to you the moral facts [from 'the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics'] I presented are analogous to how scientific facts are derived from the Scientific Framework and System.

Are you insisting Scientific Facts derived from induction and not deduction are not objective facts?
You have not answered this.

I have also demonstrated objective facts are derived from various type of Framework and System, e.g. legal, astronomy, mathematics, geometry, economics, etc.
Are you deny these are not objective facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
I have repeated this SO MANY times.

As I had pointed out, you have not defined 'Morality' and 'objectivity' properly in your OP but merely presented it from your dogmatic view from Philosophical Realism as explained in details in this OP;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29390
You have not bothered to counter it at all.

I'm wondering how long you can keep this up.

You a philosophy-gnat challenging me?
I suggest you do more research into the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics to understand [not necessary agree with] what I am getting at.

[Peter Holmes]

I have demonstrated what is such a moral fact many times in terms of breathing, killing, slavery, etc.

The most obvious is;
1. All humans breathe - biological and empirical fact.
2. All humans must breathe else they die - biological, empirical and moral fact.
3. No human ought to stop another human being from breathing, else the person will die. - moral fact.

This objective moral fact [3] will be embedded as a moral objective [as a GUIDE only] within the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Here's what's wrong with your example.

1 The claim 'all humans must breathe else they die' just means 'if humans don't breathe, they die' - and that is not a moral assertion. It has no moral implication whatsoever, so it can't be a moral fact. You merely say it is, with no justification - as always.

2 So your argument is this: if humans don't breathe, they die; therefore it's morally wrong to stop another human breathing.

And that simply does not follow as a deduction. The fact does not entail the moral opinion. And that can be demonstrated by negating the moral opinion, as follows.

You are still getting it.

Are scientific facts based on deduction?
it is an obvious NO!!
but they are still facts because they are justified from the Scientific Framework and System based on empirical evidences, induction and reasoning.

Why are you not making a fuss about scientific facts which are objective since you're are insisting facts must be derived from deduction.

Btw, just as productive scientists don't give a f..k with Hume's Problem of Induction, productive moral philosophers do not give a f..k with Hume's 'no is from ought' and your deductive fact and state-of-affairs which are ultimately unrealistic.
I suggest you do more research into the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics to understand [not necessary agree with] what I am getting at.

If humans don't breathe, they die; therefore it's not morally wrong to stop another human breathing. This is not a logical contradiction - which means the original isn't a logical deduction.

Note my point above, facts don't have to come from deduction.
The moral fact I presented is derived from a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics based on empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.
You ignored the philosophical reasoning and basis of justification, e.g. universality, etc. and did not counter why they are not relevant.
Your mind don't seem to click with how morality-proper work and its need for a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Btw, do you understand what is Normative Ethics.

Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. It is the branch of philosophical ethics that investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking.
-wiki

To enable Normative Ethics to progress efficiently we need a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics to extract the moral facts to ground the necessary moral standards.
This has nothing to do with your analytics views on 'fact' 'state-of-affairs' etc.

I'm wondering how long you can keep this up. You haven't demonstrated what you say you have, and you ignore clear demonstrations of the unsoundness of your argument. And your deluded appeal to 'the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics' is exposed as vacuous at first contact with any attempt to demonstrate a moral fact. You just can't do it, because there are no moral facts. They're in your dweems.

I have demonstrated to you the moral facts [from 'the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics'] I presented are analogous to how scientific facts are derived from the Scientific Framework and System.

Are you insisting Scientific Facts derived from induction and not deduction are not objective facts?
You have not answered this.

I have also demonstrated objective facts are derived from various type of Framework and System, e.g. legal, astronomy, mathematics, geometry, economics, etc.
Are you deny these are not objective facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
I have repeated this SO MANY times.

As I had pointed out, you have not defined 'Morality' and 'objectivity' properly in your OP but merely presented it from your dogmatic view from Philosophical Realism as explained in details in this OP;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29390
You have not bothered to counter it at all.

I'm wondering how long you can keep this up.

You a philosophy-gnat challenging me?
I suggest you do more research into the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics to understand [not necessary agree with] what I am getting at.

So you can't show how a moral assertion can follow logically from a factual assertion. So you can see why your appeal to reason and evidence is incoherent. Whatever facts and arguments we deploy to justify a moral opinion, it remains an opinion - by definition. And others can deploy the same facts differently, or different facts, to justify different a moral opinion. And that's our moral predicament.

Btw, if you think induction can ride to the rescue, please show how a factual premise can induce a moral conclusion. (I assure you, you won't be able to - but you still haven't cracked the conceptual problem - recognised the category error - so feel free to find out for yourself.)

Btw, if you think a normative approach can demonstrate the existence of moral facts, please show an example. (You'll find it doesn't.)

And btw, I choose not to waste time dealing with every one of your specious arguments and misconceived appeals to misconstrued authorities.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So you can't show how a moral assertion can follow logically from a factual assertion. So you can see why your appeal to reason and evidence is incoherent. Whatever facts and arguments we deploy to justify a moral opinion, it remains an opinion - by definition. And others can deploy the same facts differently, or different facts, to justify different a moral opinion. And that's our moral predicament.

The idea of 'moral opinion' is merely a derogatory term introduced by some low class moral philosophers.

Your idea of an "opinion" is false;

I have presented this many times;
Opinion= a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

The moral fact I presented is justified from scientific facts, other knowledge and philosophical reasoning.

Btw, if you think induction can ride to the rescue, please show how a factual premise can induce a moral conclusion. (I assure you, you won't be able to - but you still haven't cracked the conceptual problem - recognised the category error - so feel free to find out for yourself.)

Btw, if you think a normative approach can demonstrate the existence of moral facts, please show an example. (You'll find it doesn't.)

Are you sure you understand Normative Ethics thoroughly?
I don't believe you do.

Re induction, as I had demonstrated, you can do a test and ask every normal human whether they will volunteer to be stopped from breathing till they die.
Any normal person will arrive at the same answer intuitively and this can be confirmed by induction.
Would you dispute this?
In addition I have introduced philosophical reasoning to support how I have arrived at the moral conclusion, i.e. a moral fact or moral standard.

I had also argued, if other various types of Framework and System can generate their respective facts, why can a Framework and System of Morality generate moral facts?

And btw, I choose not to waste time dealing with every one of your specious arguments and misconceived appeals to misconstrued authorities.

I believe they are very critical otherwise your arguments will be full of holes if you do not counter the critical counters I have presented especially your reliance on fact and 'state of affairs' from the Philosophical Realists perspective which is not realistic all at.
If your ground is unrealistic how can you conclusion be realistic?

[Skepdick]

So you can't show how a moral assertion can follow logically from a factual assertion.

We are not in a deductive framework. We are an inductive framework.

It has been shown as best as evidence, empirical reason and induction can show anything.

The burden of falsification is on you. Of course I don't expect you to take up this burden.

So as it stands your argument is as follows.

1. It is a fact that Peter Holmes does not want to be murdered
2. It doesn't logically follow that Peter Holmes should not be murdered.

In the words of the Philosopher Mick Jagger: you can't always get what you waaaaant!

[Peter Holmes]

So you can't show how a moral assertion can follow logically from a factual assertion. So you can see why your appeal to reason and evidence is incoherent. Whatever facts and arguments we deploy to justify a moral opinion, it remains an opinion - by definition. And others can deploy the same facts differently, or different facts, to justify different a moral opinion. And that's our moral predicament.

The idea of 'moral opinion' is merely a derogatory term introduced by some low class moral philosophers.

Your idea of an "opinion" is false;

I have presented this many times;
Opinion= a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

The moral fact I presented is justified from scientific facts, other knowledge and philosophical reasoning.

So you recognise there is indeed a difference between an assertion expressing a value-judgement, and a factual assertion. An opinion - in this case, a value-judgement - can be based on facts and knowledge - but it remains an opinion. You don't seem to grasp the fact that a justification is just a reason for believing or claiming something. A moral opinion justified by facts and sound argument doesn't therefore become a fact.

Btw, if you think induction can ride to the rescue, please show how a factual premise can induce a moral conclusion. (I assure you, you won't be able to - but you still haven't cracked the conceptual problem - recognised the category error - so feel free to find out for yourself.)

Btw, if you think a normative approach can demonstrate the existence of moral facts, please show an example. (You'll find it doesn't.)

Are you sure you understand Normative Ethics thoroughly?
I don't believe you do.

Okay, do what I ask - show how a there can be a moral fact in a normative ethical context. Ffs.

Re induction, as I had demonstrated, you can do a test and ask every normal human whether they will volunteer to be stopped from breathing till they die.
Any normal person will arrive at the same answer intuitively and this can be confirmed by induction.
Would you dispute this?

Please think. We can conclude inductively - by asking lots of people - that people don't want to be suffocated. But all we have then is the (inductive) fact that people don't want to be suffocated. It doesn't follow that it's morally wrong to suffocate people. You keep missing the break - bridging over it - pretending it isn't there. We can't demonstrate by induction, anymore than by deduction, that X is morally wrong.

In addition I have introduced philosophical reasoning to support how I have arrived at the moral conclusion, i.e. a moral fact or moral standard.

And I've shown clearly and repeatedly why you haven't demonstrated the existence of moral facts. So there. Ner, ner, ner-ner, ner.

I had also argued, if other various types of Framework and System can generate their respective facts, why can a Framework and System of Morality generate moral facts?

What about astrology? Can that generate astrological facts? If you think it can't, ask yourself why it can't. And how can we tell it can't?

[Peter Holmes]

So, deduction doesn't work. A factual assertion can't entail a moral assertion. You can't get an ought from an is. Well - who knew?

I know - let's try induction. Perhaps a collection of facts can induce a moral conclusion.

For example, perhaps we can show by induction that eating animals is or isn't morally wrong.

Or perhaps we can show, by Bayesian analysis, the post probability that eating animals is or isn't morally wrong.

(Please. Wake up. Ffs.)