So, according to this it is a, so called, "moral fact" "ANY human can murder ANY other animal".Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:54 amYou have to be precise with what is judgment.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:26 pm Don't be silly. The fact that we make moral judgements, and have reasons for them, doesn't mean those moral judgements are facts. That's a simple misunderstanding. For example, I think abortion is not morally wrong, and I have what I take to be good, strong reasons for thinking it. But I don't claim that what I think about abortion is a fact - a feature of reality that is the case, independent from anyone's opinion. That would be extreme, absolutist moral egotism and fascism.
If you make a personal judgment, abortion is not morally wrong based on your strong reason, that is not a moral fact per se.
It is a fact you made a judgment about abortion, but what is judged 'abortion is not morally wrong' is not a moral fact.
That, you and I would agree is your subjective opinion.
On the subject of abortion,
what is the related moral fact is this oughtness, i.e.
"no human ought to abort the unborn [human*]"
* only applicable to humans and to not non-humans.
Now the above oughtness can only be a moral fact when it is verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system.
Thus the moral fact is objective, i.e. independent of an individual's opinion and beliefs regardless of how strong the reason the individual has.
Every fact is that claimed to be a moral fact must be individually verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system.
I don't prefer to justify no-abortion as a moral fact here - a bit more complicated.
What I have justified quite sufficiently as a moral fact is the following;
"no human ought to murder* humans"
Also, why can a human being not murder another human being when the latter one is in pain, is about to die, and WANTS to be put out of their pain and suffering?
Since you have NOT considered this, or you have still NOT countered this NOR clear up and clarified this, since last time I put it towards you, your, so called, "moral fact" is NOT an actual 'moral fact' AT ALL. This is just your OWN subjective view of what you ASSUME and BELIEVE is a, so called, 'moral fact'.
In fact, what you propose here is also just ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of human being BELIEVING that their species is ABOVE or BEYOND ALL other species.
Again, ONLY "justified" as a "True Moral Fact" to 'you' ONLY.
If there is, as alleged here, "No Fact-in-Itself", then this is just ANOTHER ONE of your OWN subjective views, which you BELIEVE and 'try to' INSIST is a 'Fact'.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:54 amAs I had claimed you are very ignorant with shallow and narrow philosophical knowledge and wisdom.I'm serious about this. Moral objectivism is barely disguised moral egotism, and moral fascism is its progeny. 'It's a fact that abortion is morally wrong; therefore a woman must be forced to carry a pregnancy to term'. In my opinion (which is all I have), that is morally disgusting.
The implementation of the moral standard based on moral fact [no abortion allowed] thus set an objective of ZERO Abortion.
There are so many fool proof [other than dictatorial] strategies to strive towards the ideal of ZERO Abortion that humanity can generate and implement.
It is only the theists and Platonist who retreat into mysticism, not mine which is based on empirical realism leveraged upon empirically based moral facts.And the fact that moral realists and objectivists have to retreat into mysticism - because they have no factual evidence - ties in very comfortably with this quasi-religious, totalitarian irrationalism.
You are so ignorant and do not realize you are also [as with the theists and Platonists] retreating [subliminally] into mysticism with your claim of the fact-in-itself which ultimately is an illusion.
There are No Fact-in-Itself
Looks like you don't have the philosophical competence to understand [not necessary agree with] this point.