What could make morality objective?

[Sculptor]

Yes, the same as a useless machine, with meaningless results.

Don't blame the answers when your questions are meaningless.

Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. --Picasso

either read the thread or don't.
You post is BS: nothing to do with the conversation, idiot

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 What we call truth, facts, and therefore objectivity, are what we say they are - because how could they be otherwise?

There is no such thing as an absolute 'what they are" absolutely.
"What they are" can only be realized [emerged as real] and true in relation to the specific FSK.

In your above case, "what they are" is what YOU say they are, i.e. saying "what they are" within a common sense realism and/or philosophical realism and linguistic framework.

At the utmost and ultimate of trying to ground down 'what they are' absolutely you will end up with Wittgenstein's 'literally just shut up'.
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”

As such to ground "what they are" with some credibility, you have to refer to more credible FSK like that of Science.

2 Only factual assertions (linguistic expressions) have truth-value. Features of reality do not. They just are or were the case.

Wrong.
Linguistic expressions of facts within the linguistic FSK has its own relative truth-value.
Other expression of facts, e.g. scientific and others within their respective FSK has their own relative truth-value, e.g. legal truths, economic truths, historical truths, etc.

There are no facts-in-themselves.

3 The consensus theory of what we call truth is obviously wrong.

Nope.
Whatever truths and facts from any specific FSK is grounded on consensus.

4 To say true factual assertions are matters of consensus is to confuse how we reach a conclusion with the nature of the conclusion.

"Consensus" in this case is not simply a matter of "OK, I agree, you agree, we agree with such and such" therefore it is true.
This 'consensus' is grounded upon the FSK which is grounded upon the complexity of human nature stretching back to > 4 billion years of history. The latter is what you are ignorant of in stating your understanding of consensus.

5 That true factual assertions - facts - exist within descriptive contexts does not mean that all assertions are factual.

I agree what is claimed as a "true factual assertion" within a FSK may not be true, i.e. mistakes can be made. This is more applicable to more abstract and complex things at the fringe of ordinary things.

But where assertions of facts that are obviously true, e.g. 'the table you are writing on exists as real' it cannot be absolutely "factual".
You are relying on common sense, philosophical realism and the linguistic FSK to make the factual-assertion of a specific factual-table existing as real, i.e. the solid table you can see and feel.

You can even rely on Science [the most credible] to validate that factual-table of your factual-assertion is real.
But that is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
This condition reality of the table is so real i.e. one can feel its solidness and work on it.

But there is no way you can ever nail that-table-as-it-is in the absolute sense without relying on some sort of FSK, i.e. common sense, philosophical realism, linguistic which are not realistic or Science and other FSK which are realistic.

Note Russell's 'perhaps there is no table at all'.
Yes, there is no real table at all in the ultimate sense without the reliance on a specific FSK in its realization as real.

I don't expect you to grasp the above and you will continue to cling dogmatically to your illusory linguistic fact.

6 That an assertion is factual has to be demonstrated empirically. And this applies to moral assertions.

Yes.
What is demonstrated empirically as factual is conditioned upon an empirical based FSK.
I have already demonstrated the process of verifying and justifying moral facts empirically and philosophically.
There are no moral facts are they are i.e. moral-facts-in-themselves but only moral-fact-conditioned-upon-the-moral FSK.

7 Nothing in reality could empirically falsify a moral assertion, such as that killing people is wrong. So it can't be a factual assertion.

The moral FSK deal with ought-to and ought-not-to and whatever is relevant to the moral FSK.
I have traced the above to neural states-of-affairs in the brain and mind within a physical person.
The above can be falsified with there are non-alignments with the standards of the processes.

To summarize the above;

• In your above case, "what they are" is what YOU say they are, i.e. saying "what they are" within a common sense realism and/or philosophical realism and linguistic framework. "Saying what they are" as you know are mere assertions, and there are no real 'what they are' in existence until they are realized via an FSK [a very complex mechanism].
  Your sense of reality is very archaic.
  
  At the utmost and ultimate of trying to ground down 'what they are' absolutely you will end up with Wittgenstein's 'literally just shut up!'
  “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”
  
  There are no facts-in-themselves that can be spoken of within any FSK of reality.
  
  As such to ground "what they are" with some credibility, you have to refer to more credible FSK like that of Science and others

There is no other ways.
If you insist, you are chasing after illusions as in the case of the Correspondence of Truth and facing Meno's Paradox.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your FSK, is meaningless.
It will be out of date the day after you define it.
Run along!

Your above is meaningless blabberings, no sound arguments to support your points. That is a disgrace to your intellectual integrity.

[Peter Holmes]

1 What we call truth, facts, and therefore objectivity, are what we say they are - because how could they be otherwise?

There is no such thing as an absolute 'what they are" absolutely.
"What they are" can only be realized [emerged as real] and true in relation to the specific FSK.

Pay attention. To say things are what we say they are is very precisely NOT to say they are what they are absolutely, whatever that means. It's BECAUSE a description is always contextual that any idea of absoluteness is incoherent. Put your straw man away.

In your above case, "what they are" is what YOU say they are, i.e. saying "what they are" within a common sense realism and/or philosophical realism and linguistic framework.

At the utmost and ultimate of trying to ground down 'what they are' absolutely you will end up with Wittgenstein's 'literally just shut up'.
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”

I'm not trying to grind down what things are absolutely - whatever that means. I wonder why you think that.

As such to ground "what they are" with some credibility, you have to refer to more credible FSK like that of Science.

2 Only factual assertions (linguistic expressions) have truth-value. Features of reality do not. They just are or were the case.

Wrong.
Linguistic expressions of facts within the linguistic FSK has its own relative truth-value.
Other expression of facts, e.g. scientific and others within their respective FSK has their own relative truth-value, e.g. legal truths, economic truths, historical truths, etc.

This is incoherent. But anyway, what I say is true. Outside language, reality is not linguistic. So features of reality have no truth-value. Do you think a dog is true or false? Does that question make any sense to you? What are you smoking?

There are no facts-in-themselves.

OFFS. To deny something exists is to entertain the possibility that it could exist. This is your garbled version of Kantian idealism: things-in-themselves don't exist. But wtf could a thing-in-itself possibly be? What is the thing-in-itself whose existence you and Kant are denying? This is mystical nonsense, and you need to get over it.

3 The consensus theory of what we call truth is obviously wrong.

Nope.
Whatever truths and facts from any specific FSK is grounded on consensus.

If the collective consensus was that the earth is flat, would it be a fact (a feature of reality) that the earth is flat? Would the factual assertion 'the earth is flat' be true? Of course not. What sort of deluded idiot would say that? No, no. If what we call the earth is what we call an oblate spheroid - then it's an oblate spheroid whatever the collective consensus may be. What people think, individually or collectively, has no bearing on the actual shape of the earth. So the consensus theory of truth is obviously crackers. We invented ways of talking about reality - and those are consensual - but we didn't invent the reality that we talk about.

4 To say true factual assertions are matters of consensus is to confuse how we reach a conclusion with the nature of the conclusion.

"Consensus" in this case is not simply a matter of "OK, I agree, you agree, we agree with such and such" therefore it is true.
This 'consensus' is grounded upon the FSK which is grounded upon the complexity of human nature stretching back to > 4 billion years of history. The latter is what you are ignorant of in stating your understanding of consensus.

Evasive bollocks. What we mean when we talk about factual assertions being true is what constitutes what we call truth. And the most important thing we mean when we talk about factual assertions being true is that how many people think they're true is irrelevant. Your appeal to human history and the complexity of human nature is irrelevant blather.

5 That true factual assertions - facts - exist within descriptive contexts does not mean that all assertions are factual.

I agree what is claimed as a "true factual assertion" within a FSK may not be true, i.e. mistakes can be made. This is more applicable to more abstract and complex things at the fringe of ordinary things.

This misses the point - perhaps deliberately. 'Not all assertions are factual' means 'not all assertions make factual claims with truth-value about reality'. In the past, you've agreed that this is true: some assertions aren't factual. Have you changed your mind?

But where assertions of facts that are obviously true, e.g. 'the table you are writing on exists as real' it cannot be absolutely "factual".
You are relying on common sense, philosophical realism and the linguistic FSK to make the factual-assertion of a specific factual-table existing as real, i.e. the solid table you can see and feel.

You can even rely on Science [the most credible] to validate that factual-table of your factual-assertion is real.
But that is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
This condition reality of the table is so real i.e. one can feel its solidness and work on it.

But there is no way you can ever nail that-table-as-it-is in the absolute sense without relying on some sort of FSK, i.e. common sense, philosophical realism, linguistic which are not realistic or Science and other FSK which are realistic.

Here's the Kantian straw-ghost again. What's the difference between the table and the table-as-it-is? Wtf is a table-in-itself that I can know nothing about?

Note Russell's 'perhaps there is no table at all'.
Yes, there is no real table at all in the ultimate sense without the reliance on a specific FSK in its realization as real.

You have a really bad case of idealist, metaphysical delusion. What is real reality in the ultimate sense? Fucking nonsense.

I don't expect you to grasp the above and you will continue to cling dogmatically to your illusory linguistic fact.

6 That an assertion is factual has to be demonstrated empirically. And this applies to moral assertions.

Yes.
What is demonstrated empirically as factual is conditioned upon an empirical based FSK.

Okay. A factual assertion exists in a descriptive context. Okay already. So what?

I have already demonstrated the process of verifying and justifying moral facts empirically and philosophically.

No, no, no. You haven't. I and others have explained every single time that what you claim is an empirically verified moral fact ISN'T. You just ignore our explanations, time and time again.

There are no moral facts are they are i.e. moral-facts-in-themselves but only moral-fact-conditioned-upon-the-moral FSK.

Here's the ritual mantra: there's a moral FSK, so there are moral facts. Okay: there's an astrological FSK, so there are astrological facts. No, wait - a fact requires empirical verification, and no astrological fact has been verified - so there are no astrological facts. Oh, I see. It's not the FSK that makes the facts - that's the wrong way around. It's the actual features of reality that are the facts - and then we talk about them in various different ways. There can be a framework and system of knowledge only if there are features of reality that can be known within that framework and system of knowledge. For example, it's BECAUSE what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call hydrogen and oxygen THAT the factual chemical assertion 'water is H2O' is true within the chemistry FSK. Reality comes first, THEN what we know and say about it. To say it's the other way around is to get things back to front.

7 Nothing in reality could empirically falsify a moral assertion, such as that killing people is wrong. So it can't be a factual assertion.

The moral FSK deal with ought-to and ought-not-to and whatever is relevant to the moral FSK.
I have traced the above to neural states-of-affairs in the brain and mind within a physical person.
The above can be falsified with there are non-alignments with the standards of the processes.

And I've explained countless times that facts about our nature - such as neural states-of-affairs - have no moral significance. For example, that 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' is built into us doesn't mean it's a fact that killing humans is morally wrong. That's just a moral opinion.

To summarize the above;

• In your above case, "what they are" is what YOU say they are, i.e. saying "what they are" within a common sense realism and/or philosophical realism and linguistic framework. "Saying what they are" as you know are mere assertions, and there are no real 'what they are' in existence until they are realized via an FSK [a very complex mechanism].
  Your sense of reality is very archaic.
  
  At the utmost and ultimate of trying to ground down 'what they are' absolutely you will end up with Wittgenstein's 'literally just shut up!'
  “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”
  
  There are no facts-in-themselves that can be spoken of within any FSK of reality.
  
  As such to ground "what they are" with some credibility, you have to refer to more credible FSK like that of Science and others

There is no other ways.
If you insist, you are chasing after illusions as in the case of the Correspondence of Truth and facing Meno's Paradox.

To summarise. Before you can even begin to understand why there aren't and can't be moral facts, you have to remove two blocks in your thinking. One is Kantian idealism, which is harmful metaphysical nonsense. And the other is your confusion of reality with what we know and say about it. Carry on.

[Skepdick]

Outside language, reality is not linguistic. So features of reality have no truth-value. Do you think a dog is true or false? Does that question make any sense to you? What are you smoking?

You don't think "dog" has truth-value?!?! What a fucking idiot.

Dog

dog.jpg (31.66 KiB) Viewed 1612 times

[Sculptor]

Your FSK, is meaningless.
It will be out of date the day after you define it.
Run along!

Your above is meaningless blabberings, no sound arguments to support your points. That is a disgrace to your intellectual integrity.

Is that the best you can do.
State ONE moral rule that is objectively true!
Just ONE!

[Skepdick]

Is that the best you can do.
State ONE moral rule that is objectively true!
Just ONE!

Don't murder.

I further predict that you are going to furnish a bunch of reasons attempting to justifying murder. Like the asshole you are.

[Sculptor]

Is that the best you can do.
State ONE moral rule that is objectively true!
Just ONE!

Don't murder.

Murder is defined as unlawful killing.
At different times in history and in different cultures who can kill, and what and who you can legally kill means that murder is culturally and historically subjective.
Murder is bad is a tautology.

[Skepdick]

Murder is defined as unlawful killing.

It has a bunch of definitions. They differ in details from country to country, but the broader meaning is the same.

At different times in history and in different cultures who can kill, and what and who you can legally kill means that murder is culturally and historically subjective.

And there were times in history when cultures decided to define it and write laws against it.

Just about all cultures. Weird coincidence.

Murder is bad is a tautology.

Sure. "Earth is an oblate spheroid" is also a tautology. Given the definition of "oblate spheroid".

So what? It's still true.

[Peter Holmes]

Is that the best you can do.
State ONE moral rule that is objectively true!
Just ONE!

Don't murder.

Murder is defined as unlawful killing.
At different times in history and in different cultures who can kill, and what and who you can legally kill means that murder is culturally and historically subjective.
Murder is bad is a tautology.

Agreed - but I suggest a clarification.

A command, a grammatical imperative, such as 'don't murder', by definition has no truth-value. Neither does an interrogative or an exclamative clause. The only clause-type that can have truth-value is a declarative - one that says 'this is the case'.

Objectivists offer 'murder is morally wrong' as a declarative clause with a truth-value. But, even if this is translated into 'unlawful killing is morally wrong', it still isn't a factual assertion with a truth-value. Nothing in reality can verify or falsify it. Any explanation as to why unlawful killing is morally wrong has to fall back on another moral assertion, which also isn't factually true or false - and so on.

The claim that all assertions - including factual ones - are in the same boat just ignores the functional difference between factual and non-factual assertions. There's something in reality that verifies the assertion 'water is H2O' - something which, if it weren't the case, would falsify it, regardless of anyone's opinion. Moral and aesthetic assertions lack that 'factuality'. They can only express opinions with no factual truth-value.

[Skepdick]

A command, a grammatical imperative, such as 'don't murder', by definition has no truth-value.

All definitions are prescriptive by virtue of choice, so by its own implications - the above has no truth value.

Dog

dog.jpg (31.66 KiB) Viewed 1573 times

[Sculptor]

Murder is defined as unlawful killing.

It has a bunch of definitions. They differ in details from country to country, but the broader meaning is the same.

At different times in history and in different cultures who can kill, and what and who you can legally kill means that murder is culturally and historically subjective.

And there were times in history when cultures decided to define it and write laws against it.

Just about all cultures. Weird coincidence.

Murder is bad is a tautology.

Sure. "Earth is an oblate spheroid" is also a tautology. Given the definition of "oblate spheroid".

So what? It's still true.

Truth is not the issue here.
Earth is an oblate spheroid might be the case, as long as we agree the terms. It is not exhaustive, since the earth is many things. IN a sense even that statement is partial.

When you make a value judgement things are far more difficult. Murder is bad, because it is unlawful. Why is braking the law bad? You can only respond with another judgement. Why is killing a human different from killing a dog. Once again you have to make a judgement. It is not an objective truth to say that all humans must be good, or do good. There is simply no objective basis for that that does not rely on the judgement of a subject; a person to whom the rules might be imposed, or a person who might be imposed upon.

If someone were to kill Trump, I would applaud. It might be considered murder, but it would be for the greater good. There is no morally objective case that can encompass that.
As for killing dogs, I value my dog over your life. Law would not see it that way; but then as always the law is an ass.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 What we call truth, facts, and therefore objectivity, are what we say they are - because how could they be otherwise?

There is no such thing as an absolute 'what they are" absolutely.
"What they are" can only be realized [emerged as real] and true in relation to the specific FSK.

Pay attention. To say things are what we say they are is very precisely NOT to say they are what they are absolutely, whatever that means. It's BECAUSE a description is always contextual that any idea of absoluteness is incoherent. Put your straw man away.

In your above case, "what they are" is what YOU say they are, i.e. saying "what they are" within a common sense realism and/or philosophical realism and linguistic framework.

At the utmost and ultimate of trying to ground down 'what they are' absolutely you will end up with Wittgenstein's 'literally just shut up'.
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”

I'm not trying to grind down what things are absolutely - whatever that means. I wonder why you think that.

Absolutely in this case means in the philosophical realism sense. I have linked this many times.

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

As such to ground "what they are" with some credibility, you have to refer to more credible FSK like that of Science.

2 Only factual assertions (linguistic expressions) have truth-value. Features of reality do not. They just are or were the case.

Wrong.
Linguistic expressions of facts within the linguistic FSK has its own relative truth-value.
Other expression of facts, e.g. scientific and others within their respective FSK has their own relative truth-value, e.g. legal truths, economic truths, historical truths, etc.

This is incoherent. But anyway, what I say is true. Outside language, reality is not linguistic. So features of reality have no truth-value. Do you think a dog is true or false? Does that question make any sense to you? What are you smoking?

I believe what you meant by 'feature of reality' refer to that "a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme" within the definition of Philosophical Realism above.
But I do not agree your 'feature of reality' exists as real in the Philosophical Realism sense.

If it exists, then it exists as a thing-in-itself which is impossible be real [Kant].

There are no facts-in-themselves.

OFFS. To deny something exists is to entertain the possibility that it could exist. This is your garbled version of Kantian idealism: things-in-themselves don't exist. But wtf could a thing-in-itself possibly be? What is the thing-in-itself whose existence you and Kant are denying? This is mystical nonsense, and you need to get over it.

If you insists a solid table exists as per Philosophical Realism, i.e.

• "my [PH's] table exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, the table is ontologically independent of any one's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc."

Kant deny such a table-in-itself as in Philosophical Realism exists are real; it is an illusion.
What we have is merely an empirically verifiable table not absolutely independent of the human conditions -thus empirical realism and transcendental idealism.

Btw, Kant's philosophical view is not purely idealism but that of 'empirical realism' in tandem with 'transcendental idealism'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope.
Whatever truths and facts from any specific FSK is grounded on consensus.

If the collective consensus was that the earth is flat, would it be a fact (a feature of reality) that the earth is flat? Would the factual assertion 'the earth is flat' be true? Of course not. What sort of deluded idiot would say that?
No, no. If what we call the earth is what we call an oblate spheroid - then it's an oblate spheroid whatever the collective consensus may be. What people think, individually or collectively, has no bearing on the actual shape of the earth. So the consensus theory of truth is obviously crackers. We invented ways of talking about reality - and those are consensual - but we didn't invent the reality that we talk about.

What is fact is specific to a FSK.
But there are the degree of credibility and the veracity of an FSK depending on its quality and features, e.g. verifiability, testability, repeatability, falsifiability.

A FSK that arrived with consensus that 'the earth is flat' lack sufficient verification processes, i.e. based on what the human eye can see within narrow ranges of views.
Such a conclusion is not purely wrong when we understand the conditions defined and limited within the FSK.
With an understand of its lack of insufficient verification, it truth value would be rated very low in contrast to the scientific FSK as the standard bearer of truth.

The point is there is no "definite actual shape of the earth" and it is impossible to establish an "actual shape of the earth"-in-itself without any reference to a specific FSK.

Show me how can you prove an "actual shape of the earth"-in-itself exists as real independent of humans' conceptual scheme.

but we didn't invent the reality that we talk about.

There is another argument which I has discussed somewhere.
Point is we are the co-creators of the reality that we subsequently talk about.
This argument is a very sophisticated and realistic. Keep this in mind and it is from Kant and other of the same views.

4 To say true factual assertions are matters of consensus is to confuse how we reach a conclusion with the nature of the conclusion.

"Consensus" in this case is not simply a matter of "OK, I agree, you agree, we agree with such and such" therefore it is true.
This 'consensus' is grounded upon the FSK which is grounded upon the complexity of human nature stretching back to > 4 billion years of history. The latter is what you are ignorant of in stating your understanding of consensus.

Evasive bollocks. What we mean when we talk about factual assertions being true is what constitutes what we call truth. And the most important thing we mean when we talk about factual assertions being true is that how many people think they're true is irrelevant. Your appeal to human history and the complexity of human nature is irrelevant blather.

You are very ignorant of the full range of Philosophy.
Note the fundamental contentious issue of Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism.

As I had linked,
[Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme.
Thus yes, how many people think they are true is irrelevant.

Philosophical Anti-Realism will agree how many people think what is true is irrelevant.
But that which is said to be true is not independent of our conceptual scheme.
As I had stated above, humans are the co-creators of the reality they talked about.

5 That true factual assertions - facts - exist within descriptive contexts does not mean that all assertions are factual.

I agree what is claimed as a "true factual assertion" within a FSK may not be true, i.e. mistakes can be made. This is more applicable to more abstract and complex things at the fringe of ordinary things.

This misses the point - perhaps deliberately. 'Not all assertions are factual' means 'not all assertions make factual claims with truth-value about reality'. In the past, you've agreed that this is true: some assertions aren't factual. Have you changed your mind?

Point is your sense of 'fact' is different from my sense of 'fact' so there is a lot of confusions.

I have raised a few threads relating to my view of 'what is fact' as opposed to yours;
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

But where assertions of facts that are obviously true, e.g. 'the table you are writing on exists as real' it cannot be absolutely "factual".
You are relying on common sense, philosophical realism and the linguistic FSK to make the factual-assertion of a specific factual-table existing as real, i.e. the solid table you can see and feel.

You can even rely on Science [the most credible] to validate that factual-table of your factual-assertion is real.
But that is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
This condition reality of the table is so real i.e. one can feel its solidness and work on it.

But there is no way you can ever nail that-table-as-it-is in the absolute sense without relying on some sort of FSK, i.e. common sense, philosophical realism, linguistic which are not realistic or Science and other FSK which are realistic.

Here's the Kantian straw-ghost again. What's the difference between the table and the table-as-it-is? Wtf is a table-in-itself that I can know nothing about?

I have stated the table-in-itself the table you claimed exists as real and is independent of all humans' conceptual schemes, opinions and beliefs.

Note Russell's 'perhaps there is no table at all'.
Yes, there is no real table at all in the ultimate sense without the reliance on a specific FSK in its realization as real.

You have a really bad case of idealist, metaphysical delusion. What is real reality in the ultimate sense? Fucking nonsense.

Actually you have a fucking case of empirical idealism and insisting on chasing a metaphysical illusion and thus delusional.

Here is perhaps a clearer example;
The majority of people will insist the "permanent" stars they see above the sky are really real and exists as real in real time.
But the reality these stars are non-existent in real time, i.e. imploded light years ago.
Thus the ultimate reality of the stars is they do not exist in real time, what we are seeing are merely the light waves they projected million of light years ago.
Can you demonstrate an ultimate real star and star-in-itself exists or existed independent of human conditions?

The principle with the above is there is always a reality-gap in terms of time and there is no way one can confirm the real thing-in-itself, in this case a star-in-itself existed or exists as real.

With stars it is obvious due to the distance and time involved, but the same principle of the reality gap applies to the solid table you can feel. You think you are feeling a real solid table, what is more refined with its reality is, it is just a cluster of molecules, atoms and particles.
There is no way you can establish what is the reality of the solid table you are feeling right at this moment.

I don't expect you to grasp the above and you will continue to cling dogmatically to your illusory linguistic fact.

6 That an assertion is factual has to be demonstrated empirically. And this applies to moral assertions.

Yes.
What is demonstrated empirically as factual is conditioned upon an empirical based FSK.

Okay. A factual assertion exists in a descriptive context. Okay already. So what?

A factual assertion exists in a descriptive context about that-which-is-factually-asserted which do not have an independent existence.
You are insisting that-which-is-factually-asserted exists independent of the human conception of it, but I claim otherwise.

There are no moral facts as they are i.e. moral-facts-in-themselves but only moral-fact-conditioned-upon-the-moral FSK.

Here's the ritual mantra: there's a moral FSK, so there are moral facts. Okay: there's an astrological FSK, so there are astrological facts. No, wait - a fact requires empirical verification, and no astrological fact has been verified - so there are no astrological facts.

Oh, I see. It's not the FSK that makes the facts - that's the wrong way around. It's the actual features of reality that are the facts - and then we talk about them in various different ways.
There can be a framework and system of knowledge only if there are features of reality that can be known within that framework and system of knowledge.
For example, it's BECAUSE what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call hydrogen and oxygen THAT the factual chemical assertion 'water is H2O' is true within the chemistry FSK.
Reality comes first, THEN what we know and say about it. To say it's the other way around is to get things back to front.

You are ignorant that you are merely making an ASSUMPTION there is a pre-existing reality without proving it exists first. Now who is begging the question.

On the other hand I am starting with personal and the collective experiences of humanity to establish what is real via verification and justification empirically and philosophically.
What I claim is real as experienced and realized can only be qualified to the FSK I relied upon.
The FSK is not any flimsy mechanism but is leveraged upon the full range of human nature and evolution.

So what is more reliable, a realization of reality that is assumed [in your case] or something that is grounded on experience [my case]?

[Skepdick]

Earth is an oblate spheroid might be the case, as long as we agree the terms. It is not exhaustive, since the earth is many things. IN a sense even that statement is partial.

All statements are partial. That's a general problem with language, not a specific problem with moral facts.

Language is incomplete.

When you make a value judgement things are far more difficult. Murder is bad, because it is unlawful. Why is braking the law bad? You can only respond with another judgement. Why is killing a human different from killing a dog.

The same goes with any English sentence. If you keep asking "Why?" about you will either end up perpetually asking, or you will end up at a place where you have to allow for something to be true.

If someone were to kill Trump, I would applaud. It might be considered murder, but it would be for the greater good.

I further predict that you are going to furnish a bunch of reasons attempting to justifying murder. Like the asshole you are.

As for killing dogs, I value my dog over your life. Law would not see it that way; but then as always the law is an ass.

Which is precisely why we have laws. Your emotional attachment to some things at the expense of others leads to harmful outcomes.