ALL moral statements are opinions??

[Skepdick]

Obviously we will diverge at the usual points of our irreconcilable differences. Perhaps we can refrain from stealing Aquafresh's thread this time.

Yeah, but this....

So rather than describe morality as """"MERE"""" opinion, I would typically label it a sort of fashion. Over time, relatively short times in the grand scheme of things, we are frequently persuaded as a group that things which were entirely wrong are now totally ok (women having opinions about stuff, men sucking dick etc), while other activities move in the other direction.

2000+ years of murder-reduction is a pretty long-running fashion. When do you think this fad will die out? When do you predict it will go "the other way" ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

[Skepdick]

Obviously we will diverge at the usual points of our irreconcilable differences.

That's not the game I am playing.

In cooperative game theory (if you subscribe to it - I do) it is IMPOSSIBLE to Agree to disagree.

Either you are wrong or I am wrong. If I am wrong, I insist that you correct me. I should hope that you hold yourself to such high standard, but I can't force you. Intellectually anyway.

If that's the case, you are welcome to exit the discussion with whatever excuse allows you to save face.

[FlashDangerpants]

Obviously we will diverge at the usual points of our irreconcilable differences. Perhaps we can refrain from stealing Aquafresh's thread this time.

That's not the game I am playing.

In cooperative game theory (if you subscribe to it - I do) it is IMPOSSIBLE to Agree to disagree.

Either you are wrong or I am wrong. If I am wrong, I insist that you correct me. I should hope that you hold yourself to such high standard, but I can't force you. Intellectually anyway.

If that's the case, you are welcome to exit the discussion with whatever excuse allows you to save face.

And I don't agree that Aumann's agreement theorem applies here because it is applicable two people behaving rationally. Your compulsive behaviour in hijacking every conversation to be about you and your eternal obsessions is not rational. The thing you want to argue at me about here is the same thing that you have argued about in every other topic, thus I rationally deem it always off topic until such time as you create a thread to discuss it, instead of stealing them.

Furthermore, I hold the moral opinion that it is not acceptable to continuously enable the misbehaviour of a compulsive addict, so I will not be doing this with you in this thread. That is the end of the matter, this will not be revived here.

[Skepdick]

And I don't agree that Aumann's agreement theorem applies here because it is applicable two people behaving rationally. Your compulsive behaviour in hijacking every conversation to be about you and your eternal obsessions is not rational.

If you conceptualise "rationality" like I do, then it's 100% rational.

So whatever normative idea you are evaluating me against - why should I care if you can't explain it?

Furthermore, I hold the moral opinion that it is not acceptable to continuously enable the misbehaviour of a compulsive addict, so I will not be doing this with you in this thread. That is the end of the matter, this will not be revived here.

If that's the case, you are welcome to exit the discussion with whatever excuse allows you to save face.

The thing you want to argue at me about here is the same thing that you have argued about in every other topic, thus I rationally deem it always off topic until such time as you create a thread to discuss it, instead of stealing them.

You've bowed out of every one of them contrary to Aumann's theorem. You are yet to arrive at consensus with any interlocutor you've ever engaged - you don't get to call yourself "rational" or "cooperative" until you do.

That is an objective standard for rationality as far as I can tell? Testable and falsifiable!

Bonus points - it's based on Quantum logic.

[Sculptor]

As such, the final conclusion 'murder is morally wrong' is a moral fact.
BLAH, blah, blah.
You always say the same thing.

You always say the same thing.
The point is simple enough.
Whatever moral statement you make, they are all based on a premise that is a value laden opinion.

"Murder is wrong" is a tautology. Since murder is DEFINED as unlawful killing. Then the assumption is based on a position which holds that the law is good. That is an opinion.

"Rape is bad". I think the entire cadre of posters here would agree with that. But if you want to move from "opinion" to "fact" or of you want to move from "subjective" to "objective", the task is not so simple,
Why is rape bad? Because it is harmful to the victim. Why is harming a victim bad? You cannot derive an objective fact here. It might be true that harming a person is bad for them. But there is nothing here of an objective or factual kind that necessitates anyone from accepting the assertion that we should avoid harming people.
All you get is a bared faced assertion that people deserve to be treated nicely. That is not objective. It is an opinion. It is an opinion that places value on humans. It is an opinion that I agree with.

Is it wrong to eat an animal?

[Skepdick]

Is it wrong to eat an animal?

I don't know!

Is it wrong to murder a human? Yes! It is wrong and I know it to be so!

[FlashDangerpants]

Is it wrong to eat an animal?

I don't know!

Is it wrong to murder a human? Yes! It is wrong and I know it to be so!

Well that's built into the concept, if it isn't wrong it isn't murder, which is why Sculptor already pointed out it's a tautology.
Incontrovertibly knowing which killings are justified and which are not is the trick, and on that matter you have opinions.

[Skepdick]

Well that's built into the concept, if it isn't wrong it isn't murder, which is why Sculptor already pointed out it's a tautology.
Incontrovertibly knowing which killings are justified and which are not is the trick, and on that matter you have opinions.

But you can tell the difference, yes?

Because there IS a difference.

That's called "information". You've measured it - scientifically speaking, that's "objectivity" wrapped up.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As such, the final conclusion 'murder is morally wrong' is a moral fact.
BLAH, blah, blah.
You always say the same thing.

You always say the same thing.
The point is simple enough.
Whatever moral statement you make, they are all based on a premise that is a value laden opinion.

I understand the fact-value dichotomy but it is only contradictory if made in the same perspective.

Note I had argued, moral statements arose and are derived from a continuum of,

1. Moral opinions
2. Moral beliefs
3. Moral knowledge/facts/truths.

The above correspond to the degree of justifications and degree of veracity.

Moral facts are justified from a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics [albeit not exactly] just as scientific facts are justified from a Framework and System of Morality.
Science deal with natural facts but morality deal with moral facts.

"Murder is wrong" is a tautology. Since murder is DEFINED as unlawful killing. Then the assumption is based on a position which holds that the law is good. That is an opinion.

"Murder is wrong" is not an opinion.
Note the definition of "what is an opinion" presented SO MANY TIMES but you remain blind to it.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/opinion
Demonstrate to me this is wrong.

"Murder is wrong" within the legal perspective is a legal fact as justified within a Legal Framework and System via intersubjective consensus after extensive research, debates and justifications via specific legislature system.
The use of 'opinion' for "murder is wrong" in this case is merely a legal jargon but fundamentally it is an objective legal fact, i.e. murder is legally wrong.
You missed out on the relevant term 'legally' i.e. murder is legally wrong - thus you are vulnerable to the fallacy of equivocation.

"Rape is bad". I think the entire cadre of posters here would agree with that. But if you want to move from "opinion" to "fact" or of you want to move from "subjective" to "objective", the task is not so simple,
Why is rape bad? Because it is harmful to the victim. Why is harming a victim bad? You cannot derive an objective fact here. It might be true that harming a person is bad for them. But there is nothing here of an objective or factual kind that necessitates anyone from accepting the assertion that we should avoid harming people.
All you get is a bared faced assertion that people deserve to be treated nicely. That is not objective. It is an opinion. It is an opinion that places value on humans. It is an opinion that I agree with.

It is obvious 'rape is legally wrong' in most legal system.
As I had stated we can justify how and why 'rape is morally wrong.'

• Why is rape bad?
  Because it is harmful to the victim.
  Why is harming a victim bad?
  You cannot derive an objective fact here.

You cannot because your knowledge is too shallow and narrow and you are ignorant of what is morality-proper.

It is an opinion that I agree with.

You are admitting you are indifferent, useless and helpless as result of too shallow and narrow and you are ignorant of what is morality-proper.

What morality-proper entails is how to justify 'rape is morally wrong' as an objective moral fact so that in the future [not practical now] individual humans [who are inherently moral] will be imbued naturally to act morally with spontaneity without any legal or other threats to prevent rapes.

There are various sets and perspective to ground and justify the empirical acts of rape to a moral fact, rape is morally wrong.
I am not going to waste time presenting them.

The end result is to establish an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics grounded on moral facts [not plain moral beliefs nor moral opinions] such that future generations will progress to be spontaneously moral in whatever their actions are.

Is it wrong to eat an animal?

Morality is an intra-species issue.
In general, it is not morally wrong to eat animals for they are not within the same species as the human species.
One of this ground is based on the general* principles of the selfish genes.
(* discounting exceptions).

If people choose not to eat animals, it is due to their specific reasons which has nothing to do with morality per-se, e.g. personal psychological state, religion, health, culture, traditions, fads, various circumstantial situations, etc.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Sculptor is using the phrase "all X are opinions" as an instrument of dismissal. Naturally, he can say whatever he wants to say, but in the end he undermines his own position.

I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I am trying to practice the principle of charity.

I am trying to believe that all of his opinions (even if they are "just" opinions) are based on SOME sort of reasoning, evidence or rationale.
Surely, he used SOME sort of thinking process to arrive at his opinions - even if it's just his own instinct for self-preservation; or his disgust for heinous acts. He arrived as his opinion via thinking even if he can't explain the exact thought process.

I am trying to be charitable, but if he wants us to think that he pulls all of his opinions out of his ass... well - I can accept that too.

Opinion doesn't entail a complete lack of process, you can of course just pull an opinion entirely out of your butt, however there is usually some sort of basis for them, and internal consistency with your own beliefs and other opinions is usually assumed even though it seldom holds up under questioning.

Fact and opinion as commonly differentiated (excluding whatever computer science you are about to unleash and I am about to ignore) by the sort of justification that can support their claims as well as the degree to which contradiction is problematic.

DangerousPantsFlasher,
You are ignorant and stupid but imagine you are a smart arse.

The best explanation to the above is the corresponding continuum of justification and veracity of what is held to be true from opinions, to beliefs to facts/knowledge/truths.

Opinions [high subjectivity] can be pulled from the air but as we progress to personal beliefs [medium objectivity], there is some degree of justification needed and finally to fact as Justified True Beliefs where a higher precision of justification is needed, e.g. as in Science.

Being born into a society and inheriting a huge number of shared beliefs is part of being a human. The opinions you form throughout your life overwhelmingly relate to this background - even if you are the most original man who ever lived this remains true. The innate portion of all that is very limited, it seems that people and many animals have a basic quantitiave sense of equitability that would make a desire for fairness seem sort of biological. Likewise you can find biological causation in why people value cooperative behaviour. So there is something arguably factual underlying our ability to percieve a realm of ethics at all.

There you go again, your failure to differentiate between opinions, beliefs and facts [JTB].
You seem to sense there is biological causation to morality but is ignorant in missing out on the obvious to justify moral facts from biological facts, e.g. breathing, hunger, security, basic survival, etc.

The empirical fact of "all human must breathe or they'll die" to the assertion 'no human ought to stop another human being' -M1 is not merely opinion but it is a justified moral fact from within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
Even to the individual it is not an opinion [general definition] but rather a personal belief based on personal experiences and empirical observations of other humans.
It is also obvious, M1 is a shared belief by ALL normal people.
In that case, M1 qualify as a moral fact as justified and conditioned upon the Moral Framework and System, M1 is thus as objective as objective scientific knowledge, and is thereupon independent from individuals' beliefs and opinion.

But just as there is biology involved in us having linguistic capabilities that does little to establish what things we must describe with them, so the contents of our ethical world seem to be up to us to manufacture, which helps explain why we keep refining it.

Individuals can manufacture moral opinions [general definition] and moral beliefs, but they cannot simply manufacture moral facts which are justified as explained above.

So rather than describe morality as """"MERE"""" opinion, I would typically label it a sort of fashion. Over time, relatively short times in the grand scheme of things, we are frequently persuaded as a group that things which were entirely wrong are now totally ok (women having opinions about stuff, men sucking dick etc), while other activities move in the other direction.

It is not 'fashionable' nor trendy with moral facts related to imperatives like breathing, hunger, life or death issues.
Morality per-se focus mainly on the critical issue to derive moral facts to GUIDE human actions.

The general direction of these things is that we extend our concern to new groups over time. So the earliest human societies had direct concern for their family and their group as 'us' plus whatever rules of commerce or war may be agreed with neighbouring groups of outsiders. Ever since then the process has involved new groups of previously others becoming 'us'. That's an extreme truncation, but true-ish.

When have the need to breathe change over time?

Moral language however has no built in concepts for things to 'become' right or wrong over time, everything is right or is wrong. so today slavery is wrong, and thus today slavery was always wrong and always will be. As we no longer have this group of others called slaves to whom we owe little while to us they owe all their work and their sexual organs, hopefully that one won't make a comeback.

True, there are SOME people who would want to enslave others for their selfish reason but the moral fact is no normal human would want to be owned as a chattel slave by another human.

If there is a nuclear war or fascists win more elections, or some other cataclysim, maybe a new society will emerge with slavery restored as an instituion. It is not meaningful for us to say that slavery will thus become right. It is unlikely that among that future society of the enslaved that they would from their perspective ever say that slavery is right either, but among the slaveholders, assuming they follow the human tendency not to believe oneself to be evil, those guys would say slavery 'is' right because <insert whatever fashionable opinion of the day is used to justify this belief>.

Nah, you are ignorant on this.
No matter what the slavery conditions are, there is an inherent fact, a moral fact, no normal human would want to be owned as a chattel slave by another human. This is why we are seeing this fact unfolding throughout history till the present.

[FlashDangerpants]

Sculptor is using the phrase "all X are opinions" as an instrument of dismissal. Naturally, he can say whatever he wants to say, but in the end he undermines his own position.

I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I am trying to practice the principle of charity.

I am trying to believe that all of his opinions (even if they are "just" opinions) are based on SOME sort of reasoning, evidence or rationale.
Surely, he used SOME sort of thinking process to arrive at his opinions - even if it's just his own instinct for self-preservation; or his disgust for heinous acts. He arrived as his opinion via thinking even if he can't explain the exact thought process.

I am trying to be charitable, but if he wants us to think that he pulls all of his opinions out of his ass... well - I can accept that too.

Opinion doesn't entail a complete lack of process, you can of course just pull an opinion entirely out of your butt, however there is usually some sort of basis for them, and internal consistency with your own beliefs and other opinions is usually assumed even though it seldom holds up under questioning.

Fact and opinion as commonly differentiated (excluding whatever computer science you are about to unleash and I am about to ignore) by the sort of justification that can support their claims as well as the degree to which contradiction is problematic.

DangerousPantsFlasher,
You are ignorant and stupid but imagine you are a smart arse.

The best explanation to the above is the corresponding continuum of justification and veracity of what is held to be true from opinions, to beliefs to facts/knowledge/truths.

Opinions [high subjectivity] can be pulled from the air but as we progress to personal beliefs [medium objectivity], there is some degree of justification needed and finally to fact as Justified True Beliefs where a higher precision of justification is needed, e.g. as in Science.

What a lot of foolish posturing just to tell me I am right and that we do indeed distinguish between fact and opinion based on types of justification and expectation of consistency.

Being born into a society and inheriting a huge number of shared beliefs is part of being a human. The opinions you form throughout your life overwhelmingly relate to this background - even if you are the most original man who ever lived this remains true. The innate portion of all that is very limited, it seems that people and many animals have a basic quantitiave sense of equitability that would make a desire for fairness seem sort of biological. Likewise you can find biological causation in why people value cooperative behaviour. So there is something arguably factual underlying our ability to percieve a realm of ethics at all.

There you go again, your failure to differentiate between opinions, beliefs and facts [JTB].
You seem to sense there is biological causation to morality but is ignorant in missing out on the obvious to justify moral facts from biological facts, e.g. breathing, hunger, security, basic survival, etc.

I was discussing the role of biology in our ability to percieve something that is necessary as a foundation for us to hold moral beliefs. I did not fail in some attempt to bridge the actual difference of type between discoverable facts and negotiable values because I am not fool enough to take on that task.

The empirical fact of "all human must breathe or they'll die" to the assertion 'no human ought to stop another human being' -M1 is not merely opinion but it is a justified moral fact from within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
Even to the individual it is not an opinion [general definition] but rather a personal belief based on personal experiences and empirical observations of other humans.
It is also obvious, M1 is a shared belief by ALL normal people.
In that case, M1 qualify as a moral fact as justified and conditioned upon the Moral Framework and System, M1 is thus as objective as objective scientific knowledge, and is thereupon independent from individuals' beliefs and opinion.

Error strewn nonsense.

• It's very easy to come up with an example where the death of some bad man is a morally desirable outcome.

• An opinion can be shared by all normal people, that does not make it a fact, it makes it a fashion. I have an explanation of fashion in this sense for our non-native English speakers a little way down the page

• Opinions shared by all normal people are also frequently wrong - they used to all believe that disease was caused by humours for instance, which was a factually wrong belief. And you IN THIS VERY POST are arguing that their commonly held opinions about slavery for many centuries were also factually incorrect - which makes that a SELF DEFEATING ARGUMENT

• Not that that matters, you chose JTB as your standard here, so under that basis alone your whole argument there was shot anyway.

• But since when has the output of a science needed to qualify its facts as only applicable to the normative selection "normal people"?

• And in what lunatic world could we confuse scientific paradigms of objectivity (unless humans are the subject of the enquiry, X should be true if no human ever existed under that paradigm) with some general agreement among the normal, even though they are only defined as normal IF they hold broadly the same opinions as their peers do.

But just as there is biology involved in us having linguistic capabilities that does little to establish what things we must describe with them, so the contents of our ethical world seem to be up to us to manufacture, which helps explain why we keep refining it.

Individuals can manufacture moral opinions [general definition] and moral beliefs, but they cannot simply manufacture moral facts which are justified as explained above.

You have misunderstood me. As a society we create language as we go along, making up news words and finding new things we need to describe etc. Biology gives us language processing centres in our brains, vocal chords, coperative society and so on which are necessary for us to have language, but we collectively put the actual thing together and by using it we make it. That's similar to the link between our shared ethics and moral practises to the biology stuff I referenced up the page.

So rather than describe morality as """"MERE"""" opinion, I would typically label it a sort of fashion. Over time, relatively short times in the grand scheme of things, we are frequently persuaded as a group that things which were entirely wrong are now totally ok (women having opinions about stuff, men sucking dick etc), while other activities move in the other direction.

It is not 'fashionable' nor trendy with moral facts related to imperatives like breathing, hunger, life or death issues.
Morality per-se focus mainly on the critical issue to derive moral facts to GUIDE human actions.

I'm going to assume that this is a second language issue. A thing can be a fashion without being a fad, it just has to be something people do without an super strong reason that they must do so. Here's an example:
When seated to dinner it is the fashion in {country X} to always pass the salt to one's left but many an ill-mannered Englishman has been guilty of anti-clockwise condimenting in that nation!

You should note how, with my description of ethics, I don't have to put myself through this whole thing of saying "moral ruels are really really really True as Facts.... but it's only supposed to be a GUIDE"

The general direction of these things is that we extend our concern to new groups over time. So the earliest human societies had direct concern for their family and their group as 'us' plus whatever rules of commerce or war may be agreed with neighbouring groups of outsiders. Ever since then the process has involved new groups of previously others becoming 'us'. That's an extreme truncation, but true-ish.

When have the need to breathe change over time?

Moral language however has no built in concepts for things to 'become' right or wrong over time, everything is right or is wrong. so today slavery is wrong, and thus today slavery was always wrong and always will be. As we no longer have this group of others called slaves to whom we owe little while to us they owe all their work and their sexual organs, hopefully that one won't make a comeback.

True, there are SOME people who would want to enslave others for their selfish reason but the moral fact is no normal human would want to be owned as a chattel slave by another human.

If there is a nuclear war or fascists win more elections, or some other cataclysim, maybe a new society will emerge with slavery restored as an instituion. It is not meaningful for us to say that slavery will thus become right. It is unlikely that among that future society of the enslaved that they would from their perspective ever say that slavery is right either, but among the slaveholders, assuming they follow the human tendency not to believe oneself to be evil, those guys would say slavery 'is' right because <insert whatever fashionable opinion of the day is used to justify this belief>.

Nah, you are ignorant on this.
No matter what the slavery conditions are, there is an inherent fact, a moral fact, no normal human would want to be owned as a chattel slave by another human. This is why we are seeing this fact unfolding throughout history till the present.

You shouldn't try to rely on your argument about breathing, it was awful.
You really have got to learn how to construct an argument such that if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true because it is actually derived from them. This extraordinary simple idea is the basic one that ruins every argument you ever present.

[Skepdick]

And in what lunatic world could we confuse scientific paradigms of objectivity (unless humans are the subject of the enquiry, X should be true if no human ever existed under that paradigm) with some general agreement among the normal, even though they are only defined as normal IF they hold broadly the same opinions as their peers do.[/list]

It's pretty ironic that you can't even tell you are the lunatic in this scenario.

In what paradigm is anybody "doing science" if no human ever existed?
Who is "doing science" and how if no human ever existed?

The Observer is necessary for science.
There is no paradigms of objectivity in which the observer does not exist.

I am willing to be proven wrong though. All you need to furnish is an ideal non-human scientist/observer so we can have some "general agreement" on this matter.

[Sculptor]

As such, the final conclusion 'murder is morally wrong' is a moral fact.
BLAH, blah, blah.
You always say the same thing.

You always say the same thing.
The point is simple enough.
Whatever moral statement you make, they are all based on a premise that is a value laden opinion.

I understand the fact-value dichotomy but it is only contradictory if made in the same perspective.

Note I had argued, moral statements arose and are derived from a continuum of,

1. Moral opinions
2. Moral beliefs
3. Moral knowledge/facts/truths.

The above correspond to the degree of justifications and degree of veracity.

Moral facts are justified from a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics [albeit not exactly] just as scientific facts are justified from a Framework and System of Morality.
Science deal with natural facts but morality deal with moral facts.

"Murder is wrong" is a tautology. Since murder is DEFINED as unlawful killing. Then the assumption is based on a position which holds that the law is good. That is an opinion.

"Murder is wrong" is not an opinion.

Murder is Good is also an opinion.
And it would depend on who is murdering and who is the murderer.
If I murder Hitler, murder is good.
If you can't understand that then you are truly fucking stupid.

"Murder is wrong" within the legal perspective is a legal fact as justified within a Legal Framework and System via intersubjective consensus after extensive research, debates and justifications via specific legislature system.

Murder is illegal is a fact. Murder is wrong is an opinion.

n.

"Rape is bad". I think the entire cadre of posters here would agree with that. But if you want to move from "opinion" to "fact" or if you want to move from "subjective" to "objective", the task is not so simple,
Why is rape bad? Because it is harmful to the victim. Why is harming a victim bad? You cannot derive an objective fact here. It might be true that harming a person is bad for them. But there is nothing here of an objective or factual kind that necessitates anyone from accepting the assertion that we should avoid harming people.
All you get is a bared faced assertion that people deserve to be treated nicely. That is not objective. It is an opinion. It is an opinion that places value on humans. It is an opinion that I agree with.

It is obvious 'rape is legally wrong' in most legal system.
As I had stated we can justify how and why 'rape is morally wrong.'

• Why is rape bad?
  Because it is harmful to the victim.
  Why is harming a victim bad?
  You cannot derive an objective fact here.

You cannot because your knowledge is too shallow and narrow and you are ignorant of what is morality-proper.

It is an opinion that I agree with.

You are admitting you are indifferent, useless and helpless as result of too shallow and narrow and you are ignorant of what is morality-proper.

I am sharing an opinion, not agreeing to a fact

What morality-proper entails is how to justify 'rape is morally wrong' as an objective moral fact so that in the future [not practical now] individual humans [who are inherently moral] will be imbued naturally to act morally with spontaneity without any legal or other threats to prevent rapes.

There are various sets and perspective to ground and justify the empirical acts of rape to a moral fact, rape is morally wrong.
I am not going to waste time presenting them.

The end result is to establish an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics grounded on moral facts [not plain moral beliefs nor moral opinions] such that future generations will progress to be spontaneously moral in whatever their actions are.

Is it wrong to eat an animal?

Morality is an intra-species issue.
In general, it is not morally wrong to eat animals for they are not within the same species as the human species.

THAT ALSO IS AN OPINION that some disagree with.

One of this ground is based on the general* principles of the selfish genes.
(* discounting exceptions).

If people choose not to eat animals, it is due to their specific reasons which has nothing to do with morality per-se, e.g. personal psychological state, religion, health, culture, traditions, fads, various circumstantial situations, etc.

You you personally prefer to protect humans but exclude animals. That is your right. It is your right to express an OPINION.
However there is no objective fact that insists that animals and humans have to be treated differently.

There are cases where murder is the right thing to do, and therefore murder is good in those cases. There are many other cases where breaking the law is the right thing to do.

[Atla]

ALL moral statements are opinions.
That is an objective fact.

I claimed the following moral statements are objective moral facts as justified from a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics;

• 1. No human ought to kill another human.
  2. No human ought to stop another human from breathing till death.
  3. No human ought to rape another human.
  4. No human ought to commit any evil* act upon another human.
  * as defined appropriately

It is therefore morally wrong for any one to act against the above objective moral facts.

For anyone who insist the above objective moral statement [moral facts] are merely opinions, means they deny the above are objective in the moral sense.
Because the above to them are merely opinions and not objective morally, therefore, it is not morally wrong to commit any of the above evil.

Thus their views can be interpreted as;
For them it is not morally wrong to murder them, rape their wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on him and others.

Their only recourse is legal [not if living in an isolated island], personal vengeance or cry, but they has no holistic moral solutions to deal with the acts of evil for the sake of humanity.

ps. the above idea is extended from Skepdick's.

Views?

You should take a break and learn some damn English. That is NOT how the words "fact" and "objective" are used.

[Sculptor]

• 1. No human ought to kill another human.
  2. No human ought to stop another human from breathing till death.
  3. No human ought to rape another human.
  4. No human ought to commit any evil* act upon another human.
  * as defined appropriately

Oh look here are four assertions.
They are platitudes.
They are banal.
They are aspirations.
They are opinions.

It does not matter how many times you repeat them.
What they are not are objective; neither are they facts.