What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

We ask for one example of a so-called moral fact, with an explanation of why it's a fact and not the expression of an opinion. Response? Tumbleweed. Plus frothing anger and nastiness.

We can show why it's a fact that water is H2O. Now, please show why it's a fact that, say, abortion is morally wrong. Or not morally wrong. What evidence is there for either moral assertion?

Answer: none. Why? Because there are no moral facts. The end.

That we can show why it's a fact that water is H2O is not because your father or mother said so.

Agreed. Precisely the point. Something more than 'saying' is required. Now, try reading the following passage, which you've quoted many times.

• A fact is a datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance, which, if accepted as true and proven true, allows a logical conclusion to be reached on a true–false evaluation. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
  Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
  For example,
  "This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
  "The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. Further,
  "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.

Notice: a true factual assertion - such as 'the sun is a star' - accurately describes a fact - a feature of reality. That feature of reality - that fact - doesn't exist because of the astronomical description. If it did, talk of accurate description would be meaningless. We can't accurately describe something that exists only because we're describing it.

Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion. {of a sentient being but not a collective of subjects within a FSK}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact[/list]

Fraud! Doctoring a quotation so that it says the opposite of what it actually says! Have you no shame?

Note skepdick's;

For somebody who accepts the existence of facts it follows that any sub-category of facts exists also. By deduction.

Physical facts.
Psychological facts.
Biological facts.
Cosmological facts.
Moral facts.

Along with the above principles, we can have a moral FSK which can be credible and reliable as near to the scientific FSK.

Look up the fallacy of division. And anyway, think about the question-begging involved in assuming that there are moral facts. This argument is invalid.

Morality-proper's focus is not about rightness or wrongness.
Thus the question of 'abortion is right or wrong' is a non-starter re morality-proper.

Morality-proper? No such thing. It's an invention. You made it up. It doesn't exist. Morality is about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. And there is nothing about abortion that can settle the argument as to whether it's morally right or wrong. Go back to the description of what constitutes a fact, which you quoted above. But then, perhaps you should also invent facts-proper.

I have given an example of an objective moral fact, i.e. the ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans which is a matter of fact and that can be verified by the science-biology FSK; when inputted into the moral FSK, it emerges as an objective moral fact.

Rubbish. There is no morality framework and system of knowledge. You made that up. And neuroscientific facts have no moral entailment. If our programming with what you call oughtness-not-to-kill has nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness, then it has nothing to do with morality, full stop.

When the majority of humanity recognize the existence of the objective moral fact, i.e. the ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans, and optimize it moral functions, all issues related to 'abortion' will be resolved optimally in time [in the future, of course not now].

Rubbish. The supposed moral fact that humans ought not to kill humans is already being used by Christian fascists to force people to carry a pregnancy to term. That's what the lie that there are moral facts enables. People who think there are moral facts always think they know what those facts are, and can therefore feel justified in imposing the consequences of those facts on others. In the US, they're now talking about executing people who have abortions. But hey - there are moral facts!

Moral objectivism is an egotistical delusion with disguised but vicious implications. Opposing and overcoming the delusion is a moral imperative, in my opinion.

[Peter Holmes]

If your argument is refuted - shown to be invalid or valid but unsound - one evasion is to deny you were making an argument in the first place. The dick-for-brains evasion: why should I play by your rules? and whose rules are they anyway? The throw your-dummy-out-of-the-pram solution.

Okay. Don't fucking play by the rules - or any rules. Fuck off and play by yourself.

But VA's evasion is different: 'morality-proper' has nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness. So a neurological fact about human motivation can be a 'moral fact'.

And all this sodding about is necessary because moral realists and objectivists can't produce even one example of a so-called moral fact - a moral feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of belief, judgement or opinion.

[Skepdick]

We ask for one example of a so-called moral fact, with an explanation of why it's a fact and not the expression of an opinion. Response? Tumbleweed. Plus frothing anger and nastiness.

We can show why it's a fact that water is H2O. Now, please show why it's a fact that, say, abortion is morally wrong. Or not morally wrong. What evidence is there for either moral assertion?

Answer: none. Why? Because there are no moral facts. The end.

That we can show why it's a fact that water is H2O is not because your father or mother said so.

Agreed. Precisely the point. Something more than 'saying' is required.

So nothing more than saying is required to make this color "red".
Nothing more than saying is required to make this "water"?

water.png (219.3 KiB) Viewed 507 times

Nothing more than saying is required to make this a "goat"?

goat.jpg (43.42 KiB) Viewed 507 times

But something more than saying is required to make water H2O?

Oh, Lord! Make it make sense. Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is going to make a religious man out of me.

[Skepdick]

If your argument is refuted - shown to be invalid or valid but unsound - one evasion is to deny you were making an argument in the first place. The dick-for-brains evasion: why should I play by your rules? and whose rules are they anyway? The throw your-dummy-out-of-the-pram solution.

Signature Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes playing the victim

Trying to frame the discussion into the vocabulary of "problems" and "solutions".

What or where is a "problem" and why does it require a "solution"? Show me one. Show me a problem like you show me water.

Queue Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes throwing his own dummy out of the pram.

[Iwannaplato]

To describe the ways we use signs such as words is not to claim that we ought to use them in those ways - and certainly not to claim that it's morally right to use them in those ways, and morally wrong not to.

And Iwannaplato is right: to say there are no moral facts is not to say there ought to be no moral facts.

A: There's a dog in the living room.
B: No, there isn't.
A: Are you saying dogs shouldn't go in the living room.
B: No, I looked and there isn't one in there.
A: So, I shouldn't say there's a dog in the living room.
B: I wouldn't care to weigh in on that. But there's no dog in there. You believed it, I guess, and said it. But there's no dog in there.

A: I'm dead.
B: No, you're not dead.
A: Are you saying it's morally wrong for me to be dead?
B: No, I'm saying you're alive.
A: Oh, then you're saying I shouldn't say I am dead.
B: No, I'm just letting my son here know that you're not dead. If it makes you feel good, please say it. Just trying to stop any confusions.
or
B: No, but you're not dead. I disagree with what you said.

That is the usual confusion about the way truth is supposed to work.

You think the world comes prepackaged with things like dogs, living rooms which stand in some relation to each other e.g in, on, under, around or next to each other.
You think the world has a priori structure and by some magic happenstance this structure actually corresponds to the structure of your language as expressed in prepositions.

Is there a dog in the room from a cosmological perspective?
Is there a dog in the room from a quantum physics perspective?

Or we could ask the other guy that.

If I'm B, I'm responding to prepacked stuff.

This is why any reasoning founded upon ”the way we use words” doesn’t work - it’s too colloquial and populist. Besides the fact that I live in a country with 11 official languages (which one is THE way we use words?!?). We use words to different ends; we see the world from different vantage points and our context causes us to develop different dialects. We invent new uses of words; jargon and entire new languages (theories and paradigms) to navigate the world better. And all these concepts we invent or acquire become part of the lingo.

Then why are you disagreeing with my perspective?

But if use is meaning and the purpose of my vocabulary is different from the purpose of yours then it follows directly by implication that we mean different things even if we are using the exact same words.

Or we mean the same things or close enough? and they are confused.

Why didn't you read my post and interpret it in a way where we agree?
Why aren't you just assuming that my implicit argument fits with something you believe?

This silly notion of treating language as a fixed entity is the Logocentrist lie. Before you even bother to engage in argument first make sure you aren’t talking cross purposes. Because that’s a pointless argument.

If only you'd shown me how that's done in response to my post here and found a way to agree with me. But you gave me some meaning based on my words and disagreed with it.

It seems like there is a pattern.

Poster 1: A is case.
Poster 2: Not it's not.
Skepdick: Poster 2 you are viewing language in a logocentric way. You're engaging in a pointless activity.

However I don't experience it as pointless. This kind of interaction happens in all sorts of situations, both everyday and then philosophical. I do see that people tend to double down in philosophical arguments, in ways they might not in everday or work, etc. situations. But you have decided that therefore it is pointless. There are all sorts of things that both parties can learn as they see points made countered, or counterexamples presented, or weaknesses in their arguments pointed out, or clarifications asked for and so on.

There's another whole set of experiences such interactions can lead to that are useful and they are a primary reason I, personally, engage in these discussions. To engage with common memes and positions that are held by many people out there in real life and see what happens when we interact with them. What happens when we point out flaws in their arguments? What happens when they make points I haven't thought of?

I find it interesting when people just avoid responding to points made. One very common pattern is to repeat one's position. Or make a response that doesn't address any points made but even goes so far as to quote a piece and not respond to it. The last situation can help me to clarify, but in general I am learning about how people, and that includes myself, hold up positions that they likely chose for reasons not presented as the reasons. Because it feels good (or we even have posters here who chose positions because they feel bad and they want others to feel bad). Because it makes other people the bad guys. Because they want to be in the position of pontificating.

I find it fascinating how people don't understand the implications of their positions on their own behavior here.

I learn a lot about what we as humans do, and then also how certain what I consider toxic memes still have hooks in me.

There's a lot of other things that I think are useful and I am sure others have their reasons.

You think we should prioritize reconciliation. This means one searches for common ground and also tries to see what the language use differences are so that one can reconcile positions.

When you encounter other ways of prioritizing interaction goals here, you don't do this, as far as I can see.

If it was atheism vs. theism, you'll challenge both sides for not aiming at reconciliation and finding out that really both have the same position or closer ones then they realize.

So, on the specific topic you are trying, it seems, to move dialogue towards your particular goal of people reconciling.

But in general you are not trying to reconcile your value with other people's values for posting and interacting.

You prioritize reconciliation, so we should.

And, it seems to me, you want us to do it fast and directly. The counterpost is pointless if it didn't aim directly at reconciliation. Post number two. You also, it seems to me, have a monoculture of how things get better in a world with different perspectives. You're presenting as flexible in a sense. You know the problems of logocentrism. But on another level, there is one right priortization for interactions, based on the idea of reconciliation. Best outcomes or most useful ones come from making that the main priority and instantly and here. Period.

Now I do think you are flexible in many ways and I have found our interacting both interesting and I think useful, though how to track such things is not easy. But I am not sure your approach to other posters is leading to much reconciliation. It may be doing that but the pathways are also not easy to track. This may be everyone else's fault, say, if it's not working, but in the end if it's not working then it may not be better even from the POV of reconciliation.

[Skepdick]

Notice: a true factual assertion - such as 'the sun is a star' - accurately describes a fact - a feature of reality.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes has a fundamental misunderstanding about the necessity of both connotation and denotation towards the establishing of facts.

What feature of reality is being denoted by the signifier "star"? Which feature of the Sun makes it a star?

Point at it. Don't give me a definition/connotation. I bet you can't.

It's so fucking exhausting for idiots like me to have to educate even bigger idiots who think so highly of themselves. Nature doesn't suffer fools gladly yet we must suffer Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes.

[Skepdick]

Or we could ask the other guy that.

If I'm B, I'm responding to prepacked stuff.

No you aren't .You contrived A's responses too. If that "conversation" actually played out in front of you you'd have very strong suspiclons it was staged.

Who are A and B? Why are they talking to each other in such discrepant conversational styles? Why do they have access to a shared living room?

People who have any level or rapport would never allow such a tone mismatch to continue; seems B is gaslighting A too.

A. There's a dog in the living room.
B. No there isn't. I looked.
A. What the fuck!? Am I losing my mind?
<both go check>
A: Then why are there paw marks on the window sill? Why is the window open?
B. Oh yeah. Sorry for doubting you.

Alternatively.

A. There's a dog in the living room.
B. No there isn't. I looked.
A. No, moron. I am being metaphorical.
B. Oh...

In fact you were being metaphorical. You were using the conversation as an analogy of some sort. A bad one.

Then why are you disagreeing with my perspective?

I don't understand the question. If you say there's A way; or THE way (definite singular) on the way language is used it's on you to account for all the disagreements.

If there's only one reality and only one way to talk about reality then why are we disagreeing when talking about the only reality using the only way there's to talk about it?

Or we mean the same things or close enough? and they are confused.

Hence the disagreement. Because if there was such thing as THE way we use words then we could never disagree about the use of words.

So I guess some people are confused when claiming that there is "THE way we use words".

That damn modus tollens...

Why didn't you read my post and interpret it in a way where we agree?
Why aren't you just assuming that my implicit argument fits with something you believe?

Because if I did that I couldn't intentionally disagree, and I never learned anything from people who agree with me...

It seems like there is a pattern.

Poster 1: A is case.
Poster 2: Not it's not
Skepdick: Poster 2 you are viewing language in a logocentric way. You're engaging in a pointless activity.

Which is precisely the point.

If A is the case, but A is the case only in context and poster 1 hasn't made the context explicit then it's pretty obvious that Poster 2 has a context in mind in which A is not the case.

So they aren't arguing about facts/reality. They are arguing about the contexts in their respective heads.

On a Philosophy forum they are probably arguing simply to demonstrate the point that "A is the case" is not an absolute/objective claim. Because Philosophy wants to find a foundation, an absolute, context-free truth. Solid ground.

I think that's a stupid project with useful side-effects.

However I don't experience it as pointless. This kind of interaction happens in all sorts of situations, both everyday and then philosophical. I do see that people tend to double down in philosophical arguments, in ways they might not in everday or work, etc. situations. But you have decided that therefore it is pointless.

It's absolutely pointless in every situation where both parties double down.

One defends the view A come what may.
The other defends the view not-A come what may.

That stuff is Eristic 101. Or you can view it as Thesis/Antithesis, but without eventual synthesis it's still Eristic.

There are all sorts of things that both parties can learn as they see points made countered, or counterexamples presented, or weaknesses in their arguments pointed out, or clarifications asked for and so on.

Nobody presents arguments without context. There's always a "why?" a back-story.

A. There's a dog in the living room. Here's the photographic evidence of the paw prints on the window. I am stating a fact! Are you convinced of this truth! How is my argument?
B. What? Are you feeling OK? Why are you telling me this?

There's another whole set of experiences such interactions can lead to that are useful and they are a primary reason I, personally, engage in these discussions. To engage with common memes and positions that are held by many people out there in real life and see what happens when we interact with them. What happens when we point out flaws in their arguments? What happens when they make points I haven't thought of?

OK but why? Sppose that we practice maximum charity and zero skepticism. Assume that people are perfectly rational and have best intentions. Assume that every position held by everyone is true in some subjective sense. Lower your own criticality to zero - total suspension of judgment. Only acceptance. No need to argue with anyone about anything.

OK. And then what?

I find it interesting when people just avoid responding to points made. One very common pattern is to repeat one's position. Or make a response that doesn't address any points made but even goes so far as to quote a piece and not respond to it.

Yeah, Wittgenstein made that point...

Wittgenstein: I won’t say anything which anyone can dispute. Or if anyone does dispute it, I will let that point drop and pass on to say something else.
Turing: I understand but I don’t agree that it is simply a question of giving new meanings to words.
Wittgenstein: Turing doesn’t object to anything I say. He agrees with every word.
Turing: I see your point.
Wittgenstein: I don’t have a point.

The last situation can help me to clarify, but in general I am learning about how people, and that includes myself, hold up positions that they likely chose for reasons not presented as the reasons. Because it feels good (or we even have posters here who chose positions because they feel bad and they want others to feel bad). Because it makes other people the bad guys. Because they want to be in the position of pontificating. I find it fascinating how people don't understand the implications of their positions on their own behavior here.

I learn a lot about what we as humans do, and then also how certain what I consider toxic memes still have hooks in me.

There's a lot of other things that I think are useful and I am sure others have their reasons.

Reason is a slave to passion. If it wasn't you'd be a nihilist

You think we should prioritize reconciliation. This means one searches for common ground and also tries to see what the language use differences are so that one can reconcile positions.

The reason for this is grounded in game theory. I hate zero-sum adverserial games because they errode trust. Try build a society on distrust

When you encounter other ways of prioritizing interaction goals here, you don't do this, as far as I can see.

Yeah - if we have a shared goal we'll figure out or invent the language on the fly. I've come to believe that consensus is super easy when people want the same thing.

If it was atheism vs. theism, you'll challenge both sides for not aiming at reconciliation and finding out that really both have the same position or closer ones then they realize.

Yeah Philosophical/Metaphysical disagreements are stupid.

Everyone can learn how to practice Eristic and stand their ground - and that gets us exactly nowhere.

But in general you are not trying to reconcile your value with other people's values for posting and interacting.
[/quote]
Ah but I do. Some people simply want to disagree. And so I give them exactly what they want. And they hate it because I can disagree even better than they can.

Call it a disincentive strategy; or using my power (to disagree) for good.

And, it seems to me, you want us to do it fast and directly. The counterpost is pointless if it didn't aim directly at reconciliation. Post number two. You also, it seems to me, have a monoculture of how things get better in a world with different perspectives. You're presenting as flexible in a sense. You know the problems of logocentrism. But on another level, there is one right priortization for interactions, based on the idea of reconciliation. Best outcomes or most useful ones come from making that the main priority and instantly and here. Period.

Obviously. Because morality is objective.

Now we could agree to disagree and that's fine as far as outcomes go - it is what it is, but objectively speaking that's a worse outcome than agreeing to agree.

That's the whole purpose of ideals. So that we can point out that even though we are humans and we keep fucking up - we still have a sense of having fucked up. Objectively. Even if I am the hypocrite who fails to live up to the standard I am preaching.

There's great utility in being able to hold yourself to higher standards then what you are practicing.
There's great utility in self-accountability - the utility is moral progress.

You gotta be a hypocrite to be moral... You gotta preach what you don't yet practice. How else could you hold yourself accountable for failing to practice it going forward?

Now I do think you are flexible in many ways and I have found our interacting both interesting and I think useful, though how to track such things is not easy. But I am not sure your approach to other posters is leading to much reconciliation.

You can't persuade somebody to reconcile when they are intentionally disagreeing.

They are here for different purposes. Even if they won't tell you what those are.

It may be doing that but the pathways are also not easy to track. This may be everyone else's fault, say, if it's not working, but in the end if it's not working then it may not be better even from the POV of reconciliation.

It works just fine with normal people. Philosophers aren't normal people - they are intentional contrarians.

[tillingborn]

Language does NOT an cannot express anything about an "external" reality.

Of course it can. We just can't know when it does.

Potato/potaoh.

It's potayto/potahto.

If we accept your premise (how do we know it's true?)

You already have:

The problem of underdetermination just means that there will always be alternative possibilities.

Nothing of that sort. The problem simply implies that anything you conclude/claim/believe or infer over and above that which was observed is an interpretation. Given any finite set of observations infinite interpretations are possible.

Which is precisely the problem of underdetermination.

then that is a sufficient condition for disposing with Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes's conception of objectivity.

How do you know when to use the term "objective" if you don't know when you are expressing something about "external" reality?

Utility. Same as every other word.

It's pretty damn obvious Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is misrepresenting the way he uses the term "objective".

What reason do you have to doubt the effectiveness of his use of any term? If it doesn't work for you, is that a problem?

[Veritas Aequitas]

We ask for one example of a so-called moral fact, with an explanation of why it's a fact and not the expression of an opinion. Response? Tumbleweed. Plus frothing anger and nastiness.

We can show why it's a fact that water is H2O. Now, please show why it's a fact that, say, abortion is morally wrong. Or not morally wrong. What evidence is there for either moral assertion?

Answer: none. Why? Because there are no moral facts. The end.

That we can show why it's a fact that water is H2O is not because your father or mother said so.

Agreed. Precisely the point. Something more than 'saying' is required.
Now, try reading the following passage, which you've quoted many times.

It is not because your father or mother said so, but rather it is because a specific FSK said it is a fact which the below will indicate.

• A fact is a datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance, which, if accepted as true and proven true, allows a logical conclusion to be reached on a true–false evaluation. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
  Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
  For example,
  "This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
  "The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. Further,
  "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.

Notice: a true factual assertion - such as 'the sun is a star' - accurately describes a fact - a feature of reality. That feature of reality - that fact - doesn't exist because of the astronomical description. If it did, talk of accurate description would be meaningless. We can't accurately describe something that exists only because we're describing it.

You are very ignorant on this.

Note;
that "Pluto is a dwarf planet" is a fact.
Pluto is only a dwarf planet as a fact because the International Astronomical Union (IAU) -an Astronomy-FSK said so.

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formally redefined the term planet to exclude dwarf planets such as Pluto.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

When a 'fact' is conditioned upon a FSK - a FSK-Conditioned-Fact - it is implied there an entanglement, emergence and realization of the fact, i.e. an astronomical fact.
As such, there is no a standalone real 'Pluto' independent of human conditions or the collective subjects within a FSK.

Note how you are trying to be deceptive by omission?
PH: "Notice: a true factual assertion - such as 'the sun is a star' - accurately describes a fact - a feature of reality."
You deliberately omitted the term 'astronomical' in the above, thus the need to bring in the 'astronomical' FSK and its whole constitution, systems and processes, which will include encompassing Physics Facts from the science-Physics-FSK.
You deliberately or are ignorant of the above set of complex elements that conditioned the fact that 'the sun is a star'.
This is a philosophy forum where precision is critical, as such,
That 'the sun is a star' is a science-physics-astronomy-FSK fact.

Also you are ignorant of this scientific-historical-fact;
That 'the sun is a star' as a science-physics-astronomy-FSK fact is also a historic fact.
What is supposed to be the reality representing the fact 'the sun is a star' is 9 minutes old historically; that is the time the light from the Sun takes to travel to reach the eyes of the scientist to verify or you to see.

That 'feature of reality' in your sense of fact is merely an illusion only in your head as a thought. You supposed real Sun is a noumena Sun, i.e. an illusion.
The only real Sun as a star is the one constructed by the science-physics-astronomy-FSK which you accept as real based on faith.
There is no really-real Sun as a star because the 'whatever is the Sun' changes every nano-second.
As such, every supposed real-Sun is always a historical Sun by nano-seconds or minutes.

Note this;
Proxima Centauri is a star as a science-physics-astronomy-FSK fact is also a historic fact.
In fact, the fact Proxima_Centauri as 'star' is 4.2465 light-years old - a historic fact.
That 'feature of reality' [fact that Proxima_Centauri is 'star] in your sense of fact is merely an illusion only in your head as a thought.
This is more obvious because Proxima_Centauri in REAL TIME [2023] have have collapsed into a Black Hole and do not exists as real at present [2023].

Thus, what you deemed as a fact is merely a noumena fact which is an illusion in your head.

What is a real fact is always conditioned within a specific human-based-FSK, thus not independent of the human conditions [or 'mind'].

Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion. {of a sentient being but not a collective of subjects within a FSK}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact[/list]

Fraud! Doctoring a quotation so that it says the opposite of what it actually says! Have you no shame?

You're Cheat!!
I qualify the original quotation within {......}.

Note skepdick's;

For somebody who accepts the existence of facts it follows that any sub-category of facts exists also. By deduction.

Physical facts.
Psychological facts.
Biological facts.
Cosmological facts.
Moral facts.

Along with the above principles, we can have a moral FSK which can be credible and reliable as near to the scientific FSK.

Look up the fallacy of division. And anyway, think about the question-begging involved in assuming that there are moral facts. This argument is invalid.

I have explained human-based FSK thoroughly elsewhere and above re 'astronomical FSK' which you try to ignore to deceive.

Morality-proper's focus is not about rightness or wrongness.
Thus the question of 'abortion is right or wrong' is a non-starter re morality-proper.

Morality-proper? No such thing. It's an invention. You made it up. It doesn't exist.
Morality is about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. And there is nothing about abortion that can settle the argument as to whether it's morally right or wrong. Go back to the description of what constitutes a fact, which you quoted above.
But then, perhaps you should also invent facts-proper.

Don't bring in your Ordinary Language Philosophy crap, i.e. re words "meaning is use."
What is critical is to explain the context within the word used.

When a subject is messed-up in the past up to the present, then the term 'proper' is necessary to different what is proper from what is pseudo or messed-up.
I have argued, what is morality is inherent within all human as human nature.
Morality is as natural as the oughtness to breathe except the moral function is not active in the majority of humans, thus the messed-up and confusion over what is morality.
To align with the inherent nature moral function, I am differentiating it as morality-proper to differentiate it from the messed-up confused view of what is morality.
What is wrong with that.

Fact?
Note your sense of fact as noumenal which is illusory as explained above.

I have given an example of an objective moral fact, i.e. the ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans which is a matter of fact and that can be verified by the science-biology FSK; when inputted into the moral FSK, it emerges as an objective moral fact.

Rubbish. There is no morality framework and system of knowledge. You made that up. And neuroscientific facts have no moral entailment. If our programming with what you call oughtness-not-to-kill has nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness, then it has nothing to do with morality, full stop.

That is shit thinking on your part.
I have explained above the essential of what is a FSK and why is it critical to support what is fact.
Moral facts emerged from a moral FSK.
neuroscientific facts when processed within a moral FSK enabled its related moral fact.

When the majority of humanity recognize the existence of the objective moral fact, i.e. the ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans, and optimize it moral functions, all issues related to 'abortion' will be resolved optimally in time [in the future, of course not now].

Rubbish. The supposed moral fact that humans ought not to kill humans is already being used by Christian fascists to force people to carry a pregnancy to term. That's what the lie that there are moral facts enables. People who think there are moral facts always think they know what those facts are, and can therefore feel justified in imposing the consequences of those facts on others. In the US, they're now talking about executing people who have abortions. But hey - there are moral facts!

Moral objectivism is an egotistical delusion with disguised but vicious implications. Opposing and overcoming the delusion is a moral imperative, in my opinion.

Strawman again.
But I have NEVER insisted 'what is a moral fact' must be enforced upon any individual.

Note, the Christians who claimed there are independent moral facts are claiming 'facts' in the same sense of 'your sense of what is fact -independent' which is illusory and commanded from an illusory God.
Christians are claiming moral facts based on a theological-FSK -conditioned upon an illusory God- which has ZERO degree of credibility, reliability and objectivity in contrast to the science-FSK.

On the other hand, I am claiming there are objective moral facts via a moral FSK which has inputs from the most credible and reliable scientific FSK, thus objective moral facts.
Whilst these are objective moral facts, they SHOULD NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER .. be enforced on any individual, but merely to be used as a GUIDE for moral progress.

I have argued why abortion SHOULD NOT be banned legally nor condemned.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326 Opposing and overcoming the delusion is a moral imperative, in my opinion.

I thought you insists there is no moral 'ought' from 'is' [Hume's]???

You are barking up the wrong tree!!
Note I posted;
There are TWO senses of Objectivity.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.

1. Real-true sense of objectivity
2. False sense of objectivity based on independence & concept of noumena

You are adopting a false sense of objectivity [2].
Thus, Moral objectivism [in your false sense of objectivity] is an egotistical delusion {possibly} with disguised but vicious implications.

My Moral Objectivism is based on a real and true sense of objectivity which is conditioned upon a credible and reliable human-based moral FSK.
The objective of my moral objectivism is to guide humanity towards ZERO evil acts, killing of humans, abortion, slavery, and all evil acts.
Of course, ZERO is an ideal, but the fact that humanity is striving towards the ideals [based on objective moral facts] will definitely induce continuous improvements from whatever the current status.

[Skepdick]

It's potayto/potahto.

Is that THE way "we" use words?

If we accept your premise (how do we know it's true?)

You already have

Yes, I know I already have. Which is why I have already dismissed Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes's notion of objectivity.
Which is why I said if we accept it. Then we can reject Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes's notion of objectivity.

You understand the scope of "I" vs"we", yes?

Which is precisely the problem of underdetermination.

It's like you didn't hear me say "There are no privileged descriptions." the first 100 times.

then that is a sufficient condition for disposing with Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes's conception of objectivity.

How do you know when to use the term "objective" if you don't know when you are expressing something about "external" reality?

Utility. Same as every other word.

Given that there are no provileged descriptions - e.g given that all descriptions are of equivalent utility. Then the terms objective and subjective are of equivalent utility also.

If truth is useful then something that's subjectively true is as useful as something that's objectively true.

What reason do you have to doubt the effectiveness of his use of any term?

You mean other than the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about? And since I am the most damn charitable person on this forum I can't assume that he's stupid/ignorant/irrational. I must assume the best of him! I must assume that he's smart, intelligent, rational and knowledgeable; and that he is perfectly aware of the fact that he isn't talking about an external reality - it's just useful to say so.

In which case my issue with his use isn't one of effectivenes - it's one of objective morality.

He's intentionally misrepresenting the facts about what it is that he's talking about - he's lying.

[Peter Holmes]

I think the following assertions are true.

Saying something is so doesn't make it so.
A categorisation is not the categorised.
A name is not the named.
A description is not the described.
A model is not the modelled.

If these assertions are true, then correspondence or maker-bearer theories of truth, and model-dependent or constructivist theories of knowledge are misguided - because, in different ways, they mistake what we know and say about things for the way things are.

From the fact that reality can be described in any number of different ways, for different purposes, it doesn't follow that there are any number of different realities, or that each description constitutes a discreet reality. But that once-fashionable delusion lingers.

Just as saying water is H2O doesn't make water H2O, saying X is morally right or wrong doesn't make X morally right or wrong. The 'that's-how-we-use-these-words' argument for moral objectivity is as invalid as it is for objectivity of any kind.

Water isn't H2O because 'that's-how-we-use-these-words'. It's because what we call water is what we call H2O that the factual assertion 'water is H2O' is true. Existence comes first, and it has nothing to do with knowledge or language.

[Skepdick]

I think the following assertions are true.

Saying something is so doesn't make it so.

You think wrong. That's literally how ostensive definitions work.

A categorisation is not the categorised.
A name is not the named.
A description is not the described.
A model is not the modelled.

What makes this categorised "red"?
What makes this named "red"?
What makes this description "red"?
What makes this modelled "red"?

What made this color "red" and not "blue"? Defining it that way!

What makes murder wrong and not right? Defining it that way!

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think the following assertions are true.

Saying something is so doesn't make it so.
A categorisation is not the categorised.
A name is not the named.
A description is not the described.
A model is not the modelled.

You are too afraid to counter my post above -which address your points raised?
viewtopic.php?p=630377#p630377

GENERALLY, I agree "Saying something is so doesn't make it so" especially in relation to physical objects.

Note the exception with "Speech Acts";
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act
Saying "I promise you this or that" immediately make a thing i.e. a 'promise' that implied obligations on the promisor.

In general, "A 'description' is not 'the-described' " - that is not an issue itself.
The contentious issue is this;
'The-described' as described by a human is not absolutely independent of the human conditions.
There is a process of entanglement and emergence of the thing with the human conditions before it is known and described.
You are not countering this points at all?

If these assertions are true, then correspondence or maker-bearer theories of truth, and model-dependent or constructivist theories of knowledge are misguided - because, in different ways, they mistake what we know and say about things for the way things are.

The above is a strawman in relation to the issues raised.

Note;
A truth-maker is anything that makes some truthbearer true.
A truth-maker is that in virtue of which something is true.
As you had often insist, a truth-maker is a fact, a feature of reality, a state of affairs, that is or are the case.

A truth-bearer is that entity in virtue of which a truthbearer is true.
Truth-bearer candidates include propositions, sentences, sentence-tokens, statements, beliefs, thoughts, intuitions, utterances, and judgements.

In the above sense, the correspondence theory of truth is implied, i.e. the truth-bearer must correspond or relate to the truth-maker.
Since you agree with the truth-maker and truth-bearer idea, it is implied you are adopting the Correspondence Theory of Truth; are you insinuating you are misguided?

From the fact that reality can be described in any number of different ways, for different purposes, it doesn't follow that there are any number of different realities, or that each description constitutes a discreet reality. But that once-fashionable delusion lingers.

You are ignorant and totally wrong in ASSUMING there is an absolute fixed independent objective reality that can be corresponded to with truth-bearers.
In addition you are ASSUMING that is one unique independent reality that can be divided into separate parts as discreet realities.
If you insist this assumption is real, this is the delusion of the Realists, e.g. the Philosophical Realists like you.

Btw, I don't deny the above ASSUMPTION is useful for 'kindergarten' philosophical matters'; but one must drop the above assumption when deliberating on more refined philosophical issues, especially in relation to morality, theism and QM.

I explained above in,
viewtopic.php?p=630377#p630377
it is impossible for a fixed absolute fixed independent reality [a thing, sun, etc.] to exists as real.
It is merely a illusory noumena in your head!

There is no absolute-reality [can only be ASSUMED], there are ONLY relative realities conditioned upon their respective FSK.

Just as saying water is H2O doesn't make water H2O, saying X is morally right or wrong doesn't make X morally right or wrong. The 'that's-how-we-use-these-words' argument for moral objectivity is as invalid as it is for objectivity of any kind.

Water isn't H2O because 'that's-how-we-use-these-words'. It's because what we call water is what we call H2O that the factual assertion 'water is H2O' is true. Existence comes first, and it has nothing to do with knowledge or language.

Note 'existence' is not a predicate nor a subject, existence is "is" which is merely a copula to join a subject with its predicate [object].

As I had argued, the existence of a thing emerged from the entanglements of human-based elements with the human conditions within a human based FSK, and subsequently known and described.

'Water" is a linguistic fact conditioned upon the linguistic FSK,
"H2O" is a chemistry fact conditioned upon the science-chemistry FSK.

Give me an idea what is 'water is H20' as a factual thing existing independently from any FSK, i.e. exists in-itself?
Don't forget, there are two senses of what is 'fact' 'truth' 'objectivity' 'reality' and you are using the wrong sense of the above thus making you delusional in the ultimate sense.

[Peter Holmes]

Naming and describing are different linguistic operations.

If we name or call a colour red, that is merely a linguistic practice - a rule for using the English word red. But rules have no truth-value. And signifiers are arbitrary; any word or other sign could do the job.

But a factual description using the word red - such as 'the house is red' - does have a truth-value. Descriptions are contextual and conventional - 'given the way we use these signs in this context' - but that doesn't make their truth-value arbitrary or simply a matter of definition.

Stages. The house is the colour it is. We use the word red to name that colour. So the factual assertion 'this house is red' is true. And the factual assertion 'this house is blue' is false, given the way...etc.

Moral realists and objectivists say the predicate 'is morally right/wrong' actually names a property, in exactly the same way that the predicate 'is red' names a property. But they can never identify that property - moral rightness or wrongness.

And that's why they can never show which of two contradictory moral assertions - 'abortion is morally wrong'/'abortion is not morally wrong' - is true, and which is false.

The rule 'we call this colour red' looks identical to the rule 'we call this action morally right/wrong', but the linguistic practice in each case is different - something that a misleading correspondence or maker-bearer or representationalist theory of truth ignores.

[Peter Holmes]

To reject moral objectivism is not necessarily to accept (deontological) moral relativism or nihilism. That is a giant straw windmill that quacks.