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.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 3:05 amI 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.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:57 am 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 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".
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.