Morality: The Fact/Opinion Distinction

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Fact/Opinion Distinction
Peter Holmes and Sculptor often brandish the defence on ethics issues as;
"that is merely an opinion".
To me that is very philosophical immature.
Morality and Ethics is too serious a subject for humanity to merely to limit moral views to 'that is merely an opinion."

Note this alternative view:

The Fact/Opinion Distinction
John Corvino argues:
When debating ethics and other controversial topics, one frequently hears the claim “That’s just your opinion.”
It is a pernicious claim, devoid of clear meaning, and it should be consigned to the flames – or so I shall argue here.

• Why worry about the fact/opinion distinction?
  One reason is that precise thinking is valuable for its own sake.
  
  But there’s another, more pragmatic reason.
  Despite its unclear meaning, the claim “That’s just your opinion” has a clear use: It is a conversation-stopper.
  It’s a way of diminishing a claim, reducing it to a mere matter of taste which lies beyond dispute.
  (De gustibus non est disputandum: there’s no disputing taste.)
  
  Indeed, the “opinion” label is used not only to belittle others’ stances, but also to deflate one’s own.
  In recognising that a personal belief differs sharply from that of other individuals and cultures, one may conclude, “I guess that’s just my opinion – no better than anyone else’s.”
  This conclusion may stem from an admirable humility.
  
  On the other hand, it can have pernicious effects: it leads to a kind of wishy-washiness, wherein one refrains from standing up for one’s convictions for fear of imposing “mere opinions”.
  Such reticence conflicts with common sense: surely some opinions are more thoughtful, more informed, more coherent, and more important than others.
  
  This diminishment is especially troubling in moral debates.
  Moral debates are practical – they’re debates about what to do – and they concern our values: things that matter to us.
  • Either we send troops to Syria or we don’t.
    Either we allow same-sex couples to marry or we don’t.
    Either we lie to our parents about what happened to the car or we don’t.
  Categorising these issues as “matters of opinion” doesn’t make them any less urgent or vital.
  
  I therefore propose that we abandon the ambiguous fact/opinion distinction, and especially the dismissive retort “That’s just your opinion.”
  We should focus instead on whether people can offer good reasons for the claims they make – reasons that might compel us to share their views.
  That’s my opinion, anyway.
  If you think yours is better, don’t merely say so: Say why.

https://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/ ... istinction

Agree/Disagree?

[Peter Holmes]

The Fact/Opinion Distinction
Peter Holmes and Sculptor often brandish the defence on ethics issues as;
"that is merely an opinion".
To me that is very philosophical immature.
Morality and Ethics is too serious a subject for humanity to merely to limit moral views to 'that is merely an opinion."

Note this alternative view:

The Fact/Opinion Distinction
John Corvino argues:
When debating ethics and other controversial topics, one frequently hears the claim “That’s just your opinion.”
It is a pernicious claim, devoid of clear meaning, and it should be consigned to the flames – or so I shall argue here.

• Why worry about the fact/opinion distinction?
  One reason is that precise thinking is valuable for its own sake.
  
  But there’s another, more pragmatic reason.
  Despite its unclear meaning, the claim “That’s just your opinion” has a clear use: It is a conversation-stopper.
  It’s a way of diminishing a claim, reducing it to a mere matter of taste which lies beyond dispute.
  (De gustibus non est disputandum: there’s no disputing taste.)
  
  Indeed, the “opinion” label is used not only to belittle others’ stances, but also to deflate one’s own.
  In recognising that a personal belief differs sharply from that of other individuals and cultures, one may conclude, “I guess that’s just my opinion – no better than anyone else’s.”
  This conclusion may stem from an admirable humility.
  
  On the other hand, it can have pernicious effects: it leads to a kind of wishy-washiness, wherein one refrains from standing up for one’s convictions for fear of imposing “mere opinions”.
  Such reticence conflicts with common sense: surely some opinions are more thoughtful, more informed, more coherent, and more important than others.
  
  This diminishment is especially troubling in moral debates.
  Moral debates are practical – they’re debates about what to do – and they concern our values: things that matter to us.
  • Either we send troops to Syria or we don’t.
    Either we allow same-sex couples to marry or we don’t.
    Either we lie to our parents about what happened to the car or we don’t.
  Categorising these issues as “matters of opinion” doesn’t make them any less urgent or vital.
  
  I therefore propose that we abandon the ambiguous fact/opinion distinction, and especially the dismissive retort “That’s just your opinion.”
  We should focus instead on whether people can offer good reasons for the claims they make – reasons that might compel us to share their views.
  That’s my opinion, anyway.
  If you think yours is better, don’t merely say so: Say why.

https://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/ ... istinction

Agree/Disagree?

Why is an opinion 'merely' an opinion? Is a judgement 'merely' a judgement? Or a belief 'merely' a belief?

My judgement that slavery is morally wrong isn't 'merely' a judgement. And anyone who dismisses it in that way can f**k off.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Fact/Opinion Distinction
Peter Holmes and Sculptor often brandish the defence on ethics issues as;
"that is merely an opinion".
To me that is very philosophical immature.
Morality and Ethics is too serious a subject for humanity to merely to limit moral views to 'that is merely an opinion."

Note this alternative view:

The Fact/Opinion Distinction
John Corvino argues:
When debating ethics and other controversial topics, one frequently hears the claim “That’s just your opinion.”
It is a pernicious claim, devoid of clear meaning, and it should be consigned to the flames – or so I shall argue here.

• Why worry about the fact/opinion distinction?
  One reason is that precise thinking is valuable for its own sake.
  
  But there’s another, more pragmatic reason.
  Despite its unclear meaning, the claim “That’s just your opinion” has a clear use: It is a conversation-stopper.
  It’s a way of diminishing a claim, reducing it to a mere matter of taste which lies beyond dispute.
  (De gustibus non est disputandum: there’s no disputing taste.)
  
  Indeed, the “opinion” label is used not only to belittle others’ stances, but also to deflate one’s own.
  In recognising that a personal belief differs sharply from that of other individuals and cultures, one may conclude, “I guess that’s just my opinion – no better than anyone else’s.”
  This conclusion may stem from an admirable humility.
  
  On the other hand, it can have pernicious effects: it leads to a kind of wishy-washiness, wherein one refrains from standing up for one’s convictions for fear of imposing “mere opinions”.
  Such reticence conflicts with common sense: surely some opinions are more thoughtful, more informed, more coherent, and more important than others.
  
  This diminishment is especially troubling in moral debates.
  Moral debates are practical – they’re debates about what to do – and they concern our values: things that matter to us.
  • Either we send troops to Syria or we don’t.
    Either we allow same-sex couples to marry or we don’t.
    Either we lie to our parents about what happened to the car or we don’t.
  Categorising these issues as “matters of opinion” doesn’t make them any less urgent or vital.
  
  I therefore propose that we abandon the ambiguous fact/opinion distinction, and especially the dismissive retort “That’s just your opinion.”
  We should focus instead on whether people can offer good reasons for the claims they make – reasons that might compel us to share their views.
  That’s my opinion, anyway.
  If you think yours is better, don’t merely say so: Say why.

https://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/ ... istinction

Agree/Disagree?

Why is an opinion 'merely' an opinion? Is a judgement 'merely' a judgement? Or a belief 'merely' a belief?

My judgement that slavery is morally wrong isn't 'merely' a judgement. And anyone who dismisses it in that way can f**k off.

You missed the point,
What the author above implied is,
those who insist all moral statements are opinions and not facts, can F**K off.
What he asserted is, the fact/opinion distinction in Morality and Ethics has an extensive 'grey range' and one should not be too rigidly and dogmatic [like you and Sculptor] to bank on the 'excluded middle'.

He did not deliberate on 'moral judgment'.
I wonder you understand 'moral judgment' is merely one specific element [with a lot of nuances] within the whole sphere of the topic of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

[Peter Holmes]

The Fact/Opinion Distinction
Peter Holmes and Sculptor often brandish the defence on ethics issues as;
"that is merely an opinion".
To me that is very philosophical immature.
Morality and Ethics is too serious a subject for humanity to merely to limit moral views to 'that is merely an opinion."

Note this alternative view:



Agree/Disagree?

Why is an opinion 'merely' an opinion? Is a judgement 'merely' a judgement? Or a belief 'merely' a belief?

My judgement that slavery is morally wrong isn't 'merely' a judgement. And anyone who dismisses it in that way can f**k off.

You missed the point,
What the author above implied is,
those who insist all moral statements are opinions and not facts, can F**K off.
What he asserted is, the fact/opinion distinction in Morality and Ethics has an extensive 'grey range' and one should not be too rigidly and dogmatic [like you and Sculptor] to bank on the 'excluded middle'.

He did not deliberate on 'moral judgment'.
I wonder you understand 'moral judgment' is merely one specific element [with a lot of nuances] within the whole sphere of the topic of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

No, you missed my point. An opinion is the same as a judgement and a belief - and modifying them with the word 'merely' is prejudicially dismissive.

And the author you quote doesn't address the distinction between the functions of factual and non-factual assertions. Just denying that there is a distinction gets us nowhere.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why is an opinion 'merely' an opinion? Is a judgement 'merely' a judgement? Or a belief 'merely' a belief?

My judgement that slavery is morally wrong isn't 'merely' a judgement. And anyone who dismisses it in that way can f**k off.

You missed the point,
What the author above implied is,
those who insist all moral statements are opinions and not facts, can F**K off.
What he asserted is, the fact/opinion distinction in Morality and Ethics has an extensive 'grey range' and one should not be too rigidly and dogmatic [like you and Sculptor] to bank on the 'excluded middle'.

He did not deliberate on 'moral judgment'.
I wonder you understand 'moral judgment' is merely one specific element [with a lot of nuances] within the whole sphere of the topic of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

No, you missed my point. An opinion is the same as a judgement and a belief - and modifying them with the word 'merely' is prejudicially dismissive.

And the author you quote doesn't address the distinction between the functions of factual and non-factual assertions. Just denying that there is a distinction gets us nowhere.

You have to read the whole article to understand the author had deliberated on factual and non-factual assertions.

Nope an opinion cannot be the same as a belief and judgment per se.

Note the definition of 'Judgment' in the conventional sense;
Judgement (or US spelling judgment)[1] is also known as adjudication which means the evaluation of evidence to make a decision.

However, the definition of 'judgment' is different within Philosophy.
Note;
Kant's Theory of Judgment
https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/ ... -judgment/

Basically the fundamental and essence of a 'judgment' is reduced to;
the subsumption of a minor premise into a major premise to arrive at a conclusion - the judgment - which can be an opinion, belief or knowledge [facts].

The important criteria here is whether the judgment is justified upon sufficient empirical facts or simply ideas and speculations.

An opinion is merely a personal judgment that is based on person subjective feelings without justified empirical evidences and sound philosophical reasoning.

• Opinion = a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
  -Google Dictionary

A belief is a personal judgment with high personal conviction based on one's interpretation without sufficient evidence, fact or knowledge.

Knowledge is a collective judgment based on intersubjective consensus within a specific credible framework of knowledge, e.g. the Scientific Framework.
Note Legal Judgment with a specific Legal Framework.

Note my above wider range of perspectives and thinking.

Yours view are coming out from a tall narrow confined silo.

[Peter Holmes]

You missed the point,
What the author above implied is,
those who insist all moral statements are opinions and not facts, can F**K off.
What he asserted is, the fact/opinion distinction in Morality and Ethics has an extensive 'grey range' and one should not be too rigidly and dogmatic [like you and Sculptor] to bank on the 'excluded middle'.

He did not deliberate on 'moral judgment'.
I wonder you understand 'moral judgment' is merely one specific element [with a lot of nuances] within the whole sphere of the topic of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

No, you missed my point. An opinion is the same as a judgement and a belief - and modifying them with the word 'merely' is prejudicially dismissive.

And the author you quote doesn't address the distinction between the functions of factual and non-factual assertions. Just denying that there is a distinction gets us nowhere.

You have to read the whole article to understand the author had deliberated on factual and non-factual assertions.

Nope an opinion cannot be the same as a belief and judgment per se.

Note the definition of 'Judgment' in the conventional sense;
Judgement (or US spelling judgment)[1] is also known as adjudication which means the evaluation of evidence to make a decision.

However, the definition of 'judgment' is different within Philosophy.
Note;
Kant's Theory of Judgment
https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/ ... -judgment/

Basically the fundamental and essence of a 'judgment' is reduced to;
the subsumption of a minor premise into a major premise to arrive at a conclusion - the judgment - which can be an opinion, belief or knowledge [facts].

The important criteria here is whether the judgment is justified upon sufficient empirical facts or simply ideas and speculations.

An opinion is merely a personal judgment that is based on person subjective feelings without justified empirical evidences and sound philosophical reasoning.

• Opinion = a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
  -Google Dictionary

A belief is a personal judgment with high personal conviction based on one's interpretation without sufficient evidence, fact or knowledge.

Knowledge is a collective judgment based on intersubjective consensus within a specific credible framework of knowledge, e.g. the Scientific Framework.
Note Legal Judgment with a specific Legal Framework.

Note my above wider range of perspectives and thinking.

Yours view are coming out from a tall narrow confined silo.

No, a belief is an attitude of acceptance - for example that a thing exists, or that a factual assertion is true. There's no requirement that a belief be 'without sufficient evidence, fact [?] or knowledge'. That's not how we use the word 'belief' and its cognates.

And the consensus theory of truth, on which you base your description of knowledge, is patently and demonstrably wrong, as I and others have shown you many, many times.

Please put your money where your mouth is - as I've been asking IC to do. You say you're an empirical moral realist, which means you think there are real moral things - moral features of reality, and not just of the linguistic kind - detectable in experience, by means of sense-perception. Produce one. Which, of course, you can't - because the whole idea is a delusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, you missed my point. An opinion is the same as a judgement and a belief - and modifying them with the word 'merely' is prejudicially dismissive.

And the author you quote doesn't address the distinction between the functions of factual and non-factual assertions. Just denying that there is a distinction gets us nowhere.

You have to read the whole article to understand the author had deliberated on factual and non-factual assertions.

Nope an opinion cannot be the same as a belief and judgment per se.

Note the definition of 'Judgment' in the conventional sense;
Judgement (or US spelling judgment)[1] is also known as adjudication which means the evaluation of evidence to make a decision.

However, the definition of 'judgment' is different within Philosophy.
Note;
Kant's Theory of Judgment
https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/ ... -judgment/

Basically the fundamental and essence of a 'judgment' is reduced to;
the subsumption of a minor premise into a major premise to arrive at a conclusion - the judgment - which can be an opinion, belief or knowledge [facts].

The important criteria here is whether the judgment is justified upon sufficient empirical facts or simply ideas and speculations.

An opinion is merely a personal judgment that is based on person subjective feelings without justified empirical evidences and sound philosophical reasoning.

• Opinion = a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
  -Google Dictionary

A belief is a personal judgment with high personal conviction based on one's interpretation without sufficient evidence, fact or knowledge.

Knowledge is a collective judgment based on intersubjective consensus within a specific credible framework of knowledge, e.g. the Scientific Framework.
Note Legal Judgment with a specific Legal Framework.

Note my above wider range of perspectives and thinking.

Yours view are coming out from a tall narrow confined silo.

No, a belief is an attitude of acceptance - for example that a thing exists, or that a factual assertion is true. There's no requirement that a belief be 'without sufficient evidence, fact [?] or knowledge'. That's not how we use the word 'belief' and its cognates.

Note the generally accept meaning of 'belief'

Belief: an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

Philosophically;

Belief is the attitude that something is the case or true.[1] In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to personal attitudes associated with true or false ideas and concepts.
-wiki

I stated above
"A belief is a personal judgment with high personal conviction based on one's interpretation without sufficient evidence, fact or knowledge."

As usual you are blinded by confirmation bias an ignored the critical element 'personal judgment' in relation to 'belief'. Generally a belief is without evidence, fact nor knowledge, e.g. God exists. I agree 'belief' can be based on sufficient evidence but it is only confined to the individual, i.e. personal judgment, not on a collective basis, like Science.

And the consensus theory of truth, on which you base your description of knowledge, is patently and demonstrably wrong, as I and others have shown you many, many times.

If you insist I am wrong, then you are insisting all Scientific Knowledge are wrong/false.
Who is so stupid to have agreed with your such insistence?

Please put your money where your mouth is - as I've been asking IC to do. You say you're an empirical moral realist, which means you think there are real moral things - moral features of reality, and not just of the linguistic kind - detectable in experience, by means of sense-perception. Produce one. Which, of course, you can't - because the whole idea is a delusion.

I have already demonstrated,
"No human ought to prevent another human from breathing"
as a moral fact derived from a Framework of Morality and is justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.
Above moral fact is merely one example, I have justified a hierarchy of justified moral facts.

In addition, I stated the above imperative is merely a Guide to be incorporated as a moral objective [goal] among other critical moral objectives.

You insist the above cannot be a fact based on your constipated definition of 'what is fact'.

I had also defined what is fact and there are many types of facts, where moral facts are one type of fact;

• A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.
  For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
  "The sun is a star." is a cosmological fact.
  Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.

Note the use of "moral fact" in the following;

The moral realist contends that there are moral facts, so moral realism is a thesis in ontology, the study of what is. The ontological category “moral facts” includes both the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true of an individual, such as, “Sam is morally good,” and the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true for all individuals such as, “Lying for personal gain is wrong.”
A signature of the latter type of moral fact is that it not only describes an enduring condition of the world but also proscribes what ought to be the case (or what ought not to be the case) in terms of an individual’s behavior.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/moralrea/

In my case, as an empirical moral realist, what is moral fact is derived from a Framework of Morality and is justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.

[Peter Holmes]

You have to read the whole article to understand the author had deliberated on factual and non-factual assertions.

Nope an opinion cannot be the same as a belief and judgment per se.

Note the definition of 'Judgment' in the conventional sense;
Judgement (or US spelling judgment)[1] is also known as adjudication which means the evaluation of evidence to make a decision.

However, the definition of 'judgment' is different within Philosophy.
Note;
Kant's Theory of Judgment
https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/ ... -judgment/

Basically the fundamental and essence of a 'judgment' is reduced to;
the subsumption of a minor premise into a major premise to arrive at a conclusion - the judgment - which can be an opinion, belief or knowledge [facts].

The important criteria here is whether the judgment is justified upon sufficient empirical facts or simply ideas and speculations.

An opinion is merely a personal judgment that is based on person subjective feelings without justified empirical evidences and sound philosophical reasoning.

• Opinion = a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
  -Google Dictionary

A belief is a personal judgment with high personal conviction based on one's interpretation without sufficient evidence, fact or knowledge.

Knowledge is a collective judgment based on intersubjective consensus within a specific credible framework of knowledge, e.g. the Scientific Framework.
Note Legal Judgment with a specific Legal Framework.

Note my above wider range of perspectives and thinking.

Yours view are coming out from a tall narrow confined silo.

No, a belief is an attitude of acceptance - for example that a thing exists, or that a factual assertion is true. There's no requirement that a belief be 'without sufficient evidence, fact [?] or knowledge'. That's not how we use the word 'belief' and its cognates.

Note the generally accept meaning of 'belief'

Belief: an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

Philosophically;

Belief is the attitude that something is the case or true.[1] In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to personal attitudes associated with true or false ideas and concepts.
-wiki

I stated above
"A belief is a personal judgment with high personal conviction based on one's interpretation without sufficient evidence, fact or knowledge."

As usual you are blinded by confirmation bias an ignored the critical element 'personal judgment' in relation to 'belief'. Generally a belief is without evidence, fact nor knowledge, e.g. God exists. I agree 'belief' can be based on sufficient evidence but it is only confined to the individual, i.e. personal judgment, not on a collective basis, like Science.

And the consensus theory of truth, on which you base your description of knowledge, is patently and demonstrably wrong, as I and others have shown you many, many times.

If you insist I am wrong, then you are insisting all Scientific Knowledge are wrong/false.
Who is so stupid to have agreed with your such insistence?

Please put your money where your mouth is - as I've been asking IC to do. You say you're an empirical moral realist, which means you think there are real moral things - moral features of reality, and not just of the linguistic kind - detectable in experience, by means of sense-perception. Produce one. Which, of course, you can't - because the whole idea is a delusion.

I have already demonstrated,
"No human ought to prevent another human from breathing"
as a moral fact derived from a Framework of Morality and is justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.
Above moral fact is merely one example, I have justified a hierarchy of justified moral facts.

In addition, I stated the above imperative is merely a Guide to be incorporated as a moral objective [goal] among other critical moral objectives.

You insist the above cannot be a fact based on your constipated definition of 'what is fact'.

I had also defined what is fact and there are many types of facts, where moral facts are one type of fact;

• A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.
  For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
  "The sun is a star." is a cosmological fact.
  Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.

Note the use of "moral fact" in the following;

The moral realist contends that there are moral facts, so moral realism is a thesis in ontology, the study of what is. The ontological category “moral facts” includes both the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true of an individual, such as, “Sam is morally good,” and the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true for all individuals such as, “Lying for personal gain is wrong.”
A signature of the latter type of moral fact is that it not only describes an enduring condition of the world but also proscribes what ought to be the case (or what ought not to be the case) in terms of an individual’s behavior.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/moralrea/

In my case, as an empirical moral realist, what is moral fact is derived from a Framework of Morality and is justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.

But there's no logical entailment from 'Humans must breathe' to 'No human ought to prevent another human from breathing'.

All you do is claim there is a deductive entailment, but you never demonstrate it. So you haven't shown why the consequent is a fact.

Have a very deep. long think about it. And then, let's concentrate on this specific issue.

[Harbal]

Could someone give a couple of examples of moral or ethical facts? I would like to know what they are before I try to argue for or against them.

[Sculptor]

No, a belief is an attitude of acceptance - for example that a thing exists, or that a factual assertion is true. There's no requirement that a belief be 'without sufficient evidence, fact [?] or knowledge'. That's not how we use the word 'belief' and its cognates.

Note the generally accept meaning of 'belief'

Belief: an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

Philosophically;

Belief is the attitude that something is the case or true.[1] In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to personal attitudes associated with true or false ideas and concepts.
-wiki

I stated above
"A belief is a personal judgment with high personal conviction based on one's interpretation without sufficient evidence, fact or knowledge."

As usual you are blinded by confirmation bias an ignored the critical element 'personal judgment' in relation to 'belief'. Generally a belief is without evidence, fact nor knowledge, e.g. God exists. I agree 'belief' can be based on sufficient evidence but it is only confined to the individual, i.e. personal judgment, not on a collective basis, like Science.

And the consensus theory of truth, on which you base your description of knowledge, is patently and demonstrably wrong, as I and others have shown you many, many times.

If you insist I am wrong, then you are insisting all Scientific Knowledge are wrong/false.
Who is so stupid to have agreed with your such insistence?

Please put your money where your mouth is - as I've been asking IC to do. You say you're an empirical moral realist, which means you think there are real moral things - moral features of reality, and not just of the linguistic kind - detectable in experience, by means of sense-perception. Produce one. Which, of course, you can't - because the whole idea is a delusion.

I have already demonstrated,
"No human ought to prevent another human from breathing"
as a moral fact derived from a Framework of Morality and is justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.
Above moral fact is merely one example, I have justified a hierarchy of justified moral facts.

In addition, I stated the above imperative is merely a Guide to be incorporated as a moral objective [goal] among other critical moral objectives.

You insist the above cannot be a fact based on your constipated definition of 'what is fact'.

I had also defined what is fact and there are many types of facts, where moral facts are one type of fact;

• A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.
  For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
  "The sun is a star." is a cosmological fact.
  Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.

Note the use of "moral fact" in the following;

The moral realist contends that there are moral facts, so moral realism is a thesis in ontology, the study of what is. The ontological category “moral facts” includes both the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true of an individual, such as, “Sam is morally good,” and the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true for all individuals such as, “Lying for personal gain is wrong.”
A signature of the latter type of moral fact is that it not only describes an enduring condition of the world but also proscribes what ought to be the case (or what ought not to be the case) in terms of an individual’s behavior.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/moralrea/

In my case, as an empirical moral realist, what is moral fact is derived from a Framework of Morality and is justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.

But there's no logical entailment from 'Humans must breathe' to 'No human ought to prevent another human from breathing'.

All you do is claim there is a deductive entailment, but you never demonstrate it. So you haven't shown why the consequent is a fact.

Have a very deep. long think about it. And then, let's concentrate on this specific issue.

It's almost as if he does not understand the meaning of the words. I've tried again and again.

[Peter Holmes]

But there's no logical entailment from 'Humans must breathe' to 'No human ought to prevent another human from breathing'.

All you do is claim there is a deductive entailment, but you never demonstrate it. So you haven't shown why the consequent is a fact.

Have a very deep. long think about it. And then, let's concentrate on this specific issue.

It's almost as if he does not understand the meaning of the words. I've tried again and again.

Yep. Here's his definition: A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.

And here's his example of a 'moral fact': No human ought to prevent another human from breathing.

Perhaps there's some hard-wired connection in his brain that makes him think the example fits the definition.

[Stach77]

Could someone give a couple of examples of moral or ethical facts? I would like to know what they are before I try to argue for or against them.

I will try, but i need to start by writing shortly (very generally!) what i mean when i say 'fact', 'ethical' and 'moral', otherwise we might finish like most discussions, that is, arguing about different stuff.

Facts - objects, animated objects, true results (maths) and events which all exist (or existed, if ceased to be or happen) independently from my or other people's minds. For example mount Everest, kangaroos, JFK's assassination. Important note: we and whole universe are living in time, so many (most, in fact) facts are present only in the memories of people or in other means of saving information. Facts can be simple: a rock. They can be complicated: Roe vs Wade case.

Ethics - branch of philosophy and other intellectual inquiries concerning morality, moral codes. (Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, bioethics, Christian' ethics, Humanist' ethics etc.)

Morality - human sense of being able to act in a right "good" or wrong "evil" ways. Moral choices There is a normative approach morality, that is what we expect or we do not expect to be done by ourselves or other human being towards 1) world or 2) oneself. There is also a descriptive approach, which concerns what is actually done. Morality involves: vice, virtue, sin, law, guilt, duty, honor and so much other things it is hard to write. Morality is one of the central themes of our lives, since it is concerned with our approach to the reality and the reception of our approach by others. All choices have effects.

Three main approaches to morality: Morality is human invention. Morality is God's invention. Morality is natural. Two latter can go together, in Christianity necessarily go together. I am not really familiar with other reasonable views, although some surely exist. Some people do not give a f**k.

Being a follower of the God/natural approach i would say, that a moral fact has 2 main conditions to be called so: Firstly it have to be an event caused by or with participation of a being which has a moral sense, namely, human being (or God and others). Secondly, it has to deal with good or evil.

Finally, examples of moral facts: Bill Gate's donations to fight coronavirus, JFK's assasination, war in Afghanistan, Roe vs Wade case, my brother asking me how am I, myself screaming to my german coworker, that he certainly has some nazis in his family tree (stupid thing to do, I was pissed of at his comments about Polish people).

I feel i might have over complicated it, but my reason insists to do things in this way.

What do you think?

[Harbal]

Could someone give a couple of examples.......

Oh forget it.

[Peter Holmes]

Could someone give a couple of examples.......

Oh forget it.

Sorry. Take any moral assertion and call it a fact. That's what moral objectivists do, with assertions they happen to agree with.

[Slavery, incest, abortion, SSM, rape, suffocating people, etc] is morally wrong.

[Harbal]

Sorry. Take any moral assertion and call it a fact. That's what moral objectivists do, with assertions they happen to agree with.

[Slavery, incest, abortion, SSM, rape, suffocating people, etc] is morally wrong.

And is God always part of their argument?