There are no moral facts

[Veritas Aequitas]

DNA wise all humans are "programmed" with an inherent function with the drive to acquire knowledge, i.e. "to know" which culminated in Science-proper from Bacon and later, others.

Theology on the other hand is not "programmed" inherently but emerged via 'nurture' in response to the terrible impulses of the DNA-driven existential crisis. This is why Theology is not adopted by ALL humans, like breathing, driven to know [Science], and other generic features of human nature.

Again, the opposite is historically true.

All ancient societies had concepts of gods, or in the case of the Hebrews, the God. Invention and tools are about equally old, so far as we know. "Science" on the other hand, did not emerge until the 17th Century A.D.

You missed my point again.
I stated "morality' is inherent and "pre-programmed" into the DNA of humans while theology is not.
The essence of Science is also "pre-programmed" into the DNA of humans while theology is not.
Theology is not "pre-programmed" in the DNA by a later invention by humans. If so, 100% of humans at present would be theists, but that is not the case.

Science-proper emerged in the 17th century AD, but the 'essence of Science' was established in the human DNA from its early days of evolution.

That Bacon was a theologian and founded the Scientific Method, does not mean 'Science' is from theology. Note correlation is not causation.

Incorrect again. Bacon was quite frank about his debt to theology. So it's not just "correlation," we are looking at; it's actual attribution by the very person who created the method.

All theists and theologian will give the standard reply, whatever they do that is positive is attribute to God while if they sin, they will blame Satan.
If Bacon attribute the Scientific Method to God, why scientists are not relying on the holy texts?
There had been many theists and religionists who had made many scientific discoveries e.g. in the East, but they never attribute it to their religion.

Note:


This is even before any known 'theological system'

.
Wrong again, twice. The ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians were extremely religious, as we know abundantly from their archaeology. And there was no "science-proper" as you call it, until Bacon.

There was no 'science-proper' then, but what they were doing was Science in its essence regardless of the motivations.

Note:
The Ancient Olympic Games were religious and athletic festivals held every four years at the sanctuary of Zeus in Olympia, Greece. [wiki]
Are you claiming athletic was from God?

Your timeline's wrong again here. Morality vastly predates "science-proper." "Science-proper" has existed since the 17th Century; morality is as old an issue as the human race itself.

You missed my point again.

That seems to be happening regularly. That could be my fault, as you suggest, or....?

Obviously I am aware of what my points are intended to be.
I had to explain what I meant, but you are to dogmatic with your view and enslaved by your confirmation bias.

As I had stated, there is an inherent moral function within the human brain/mind.

If that's true, then morality is not a "johnny-come-lately" at all, contrary to what you said earlier. Now you're claiming it's innate and universal. And that means it was around about the same amount of time as theology, and long before "science-proper" ever existed.

You missed my point again.
I claimed morality is inherent, innate, universal but it was dormant in the majority of people because they were too involved with theology and salvation since the beginning and even now [slowly eroding]

Morality-proper is "johnny-come-lately" relative to human history in terms of its activeness. You will note it is only very recent [from last 50 years] that humanity has managed to get every nation to recognize 'chattel slavery' as illegal. Prior to date, chattel slavery was prevalent and even Christianity did not condemn it outright while Islam condone it.
It is the same with other evils where the average person is more aware of what is moral as compared to >100,000 years ago - thus morality-proper is "johnny-come-lately" but morality-proper is yet to unfold to its "20%" [a guess] potential.
Get it?
Don't jump the gun, if you are not sure of my point, ask me to explain.

....currently there is a trend of the activation and unfolding of the moral function within humanity and more people are getting more involved and serious in the subject of morality.

Hilarious. Just now, you mean? People have just discovered morality now? And they're really suddenly morally earnest?

Have you lived in this world lately?

Despite the ongoing evil acts and some it with greater intensity, there are the examples of the creeping positive trends in morality as in chattel slavery, racism, human rights and improvement of other 'moral' considerations of the average person [not all, some are still morally indifferent].

IC: Have you lived in this world lately?
Have you been researching on morality and ethics on its beginning to the present at all?
I don't think you would have done that because you believe God just dump morality down onto theists, so what is there to learn more of morality.

At present there is still no proper formal system of morality like that of Science-proper, this is what I meant by morality is Johnny-come-lately.

Hogwash. Since you don't even have a "formal moral system" in mind yourself -- I asked you about it a message or so ago, and you couldn't tell me what it would be (if I'm wrong, say its name now, and you'll prove me wrong), you have no way of knowing what there "is still not" in that regard. You don't have a way of knowing what's lacking.

You missed my point again.
I have been writing and posting about the Moral Framework and System all the while and mentioning what are its essential features.
Obviously I have in mind what an effective Moral Framework and System should be.

What we need for morality is an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics with proper foundation, structures, principles and other essentials grounded on justified moral facts.

Now you're admitting you don't even have one! You say "we need" it. How do you even conclude such a thing is possible, especially give the fact-value divide?

What I meant in the above, there is no proper formal system of morality like that of Science-proper in practice presently.

At present, there are nevertheless crude models and pseudo-moral system.
The Christian pseudo-moral system is a good one which is quite optimal for the majority but it is not efficient for now and the future.
The UN pseudo-moral system based on human rights is also a good system but not efficient for now and the future.

Why do we need to give a damn with the fact-value divide or the IS-OUGHT dichotomy?
The Christian and the UN models are working to an extent whilst ignoring the above dichotomies.

The Christian and the UN models already have the basic structures, but they are "anorexic" and not efficient, so what we need to the strengthen its 'skeletal structures and add more muscles and brain stuffs' to them.

Currently, we also have the Buddhist moral system, but its essentials are a bit too advanced for the majority.

Thus the future effective moral framework and system [MFS] will definitely include the advanced features from Buddhism and other religions [e.g. from those of Hinduism [??], etc.].
The new effective MFS will include knowledge from the advance fields like neurosciences, neuro-psychology, genomics, connectome, and various advance technologies, IT, AI, etc.

If Science can be formalized into a Framework and System of Knowledge as with all other fields of knowledge and practices, why can't Morality be subjected to the same?

Because empirical facts are not themselves values. And morality is concerned with values.

Note my point above.
Whilst the Christian models is supposed from a God, it is actually invented by humans who has great moral insights from empirical facts while being trodden with fears from the existential crisis.
It is the same with the UN models which obviously derived their moral standards from empirical facts and philosophical reasoning.

Fact-Value divide is baseless.

Incorrect. But I'm sure you're getting used to being wrong by now, so perhaps that doesn't trouble you.
Hmmm...I can see I'm not making a dent. Be well.

Note I refer you to this thread;

Hillary Putnam: Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29759
There is no response from you at all,
and all you state is "incorrect!"
Why incorrect? what is your counter argument to Putnam's thesis that Fact and Value are entangled?

[FlashDangerpants]

Note: all your above moral-facts-denying impulses are not based on sound reasoning but merely based on an active ideological impulse - where its origin is from the Logical Positivists. I will prepare a justification on this thesis later.

There are a long list of very good reasons why the Logical-Positivists are thoroughly discredited in the dusts of 20thC history.
LP has failed to produce anything of worth. The first glimmmers of LP started nearly 100 years ago, but by 1970 was as dead as a duck.
It had nothing to offer then and nothing is going to change that.

Your arguments do not come near to their formulation which were clever but useless. Your argument is too full of holes to get near to what their vision was. So how much less worthy is your position?

Of course his buddy in these threads is the guy who tells us we don't know what a question is, the guy who when asked to answer questions insists on being provided with an empirical testing methodology for said answer in advance because otherwise it makes no sense to ask. Skepdick is the only thing approaching a Logical Positivist on this forum.

But because the Putnam video he linked to was mostly a a rant against LP, Vestigial Aquarium thinks that means we are the positivists.

[Peter Holmes]

This is unbelievably tedious, as ever. WAFWOT.

Run, Peter, run.

You can't answer the question. How is the claim "Peter doesn't like X" important to anyone but Peter? And how is that "moral"?

It may not be important to anyone but me. But it's still a moral opinion which I can explain rationally - and that explanation may persuade others.

Your slipperiness is blatant. You can't demonstrate moral objectivity, so you deflect by claiming that its absence has such-and-such undesirable consequences: 'your moral pseudo-condemnations won't persuade anyone, which is what a moral assertion should do, or it isn't real'.

Look up the fallacy of undesirable consequences. But if you're not suggesting these supposed consequences lend support to the claim that morality is objective - then, tant pis. Tough. We're left with the truth about our collective moral predicament - the way it's always been.

[FlashDangerpants]

This is unbelievably tedious, as ever. WAFWOT.

Run, Peter, run.

You can't answer the question. How is the claim "Peter doesn't like X" important to anyone but Peter? And how is that "moral"?

It may not be important to anyone but me. But it's still a moral opinion which I can explain rationally - and that explanation may persuade others.

You mean like, if we were from the same culture perhaps and shared this whole broad inheritance of cultural values and stuff, so that if a person within that culture has views that differ from mine, we could possibly work from those shared values towards shared understanding and thus this "persuasion" thing of which you speak might take effect?

It's almost as if lack of superhuman or supernatural source of an Ultimate Truth doesn't entail complete moral randomness for some reason.

[Sculptor]

"Morals are formed out of a person's values. Values are the foundation of a person's ability to judge between right and wrong. Morals build on this to form specific, context-driven rules that govern a person's behavior. They're formed from a person's life experience and are subject to opinion.

I challenge that. First off, claiming that "values are the foundation" puts the cart before the horse, as you don't adopt values until after you've judged. Thus, values are the results of a person's ability to judge between right and wrong, which is directly impacted by a person's life experiences and rearing. Values are subject to opinion, as they are also subject to change.

You''ll have to take that up with "dictionary.com". But I think it's fair to a point that as children we learn the foundational morality of the culture into which we are born, and that we all judge actions and behaviours against that foundation. Rather than putting the cart before the horse, it seem to be a two way street.
Each of us assess the values of the rules we are given.

Even if we play fast and loose with the correlation of "morals" to "morality", the difference between a moral (by that definition) and a moral truth, by my definition, can be seen in the nature of the weight that an individual chooses to place on those "life experiences". It isn't a moral/value that governs your decision to take one experience and apply reason to it. It's a matter of some inherent moral truth ...

But since all "inherent" so-called moral truths are guided by life experience you are circling down your own rabbit hole. For my money we are born with a complex emotional system that cannot be reduced to morality. This cannot be exactly the same for all people. Morality is a veneer placed upon our moral propensity, but there are no "truths" here in the sense of universal and overriding truths. All claims of moral truth break down with numerous exceptions. Even the most obvious and banal moral statement DEPENDS on local, historical, personal and cultural specifics. And that is why I feel that the dictionary.com statement is not such a bad way of looking at it.

...given to the idea that "you ought to grant value to all opinions, experiences, and personal values". Otherwise, you cannot subject anything to opinion. You cannot have productive discourse. It also devalues your own opinions' inherent importance, in relation to other people.

For example, someone's morals might indicate they're opposed to murder. That's a pretty general rule of thumb. But what about something more mundane? While one person's morals might tell them not to gossip, another person's morals might be quite different. They might not consider gossip to be a bad thing. Consider the following examples of morals and see how many line up with your core values and beliefs."
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/exa ... orals.html

The example is also another example of the difference between a moral truth and a person's personal value.

What moral truth? Seriously have you got one?

It also shows a massive flaw: If you kill someone that believes killing isn't immoral --whereas you do believe it's immoral, who's view of immorality is correct? The victim might have given you a pass. Removed from yourself, you'd say you were guilty. Now facing the inevitable jail-time or punishment, you might all of a sudden change your opinion of what is or isn't immoral about killing. That's not a moral truth, that's flip-flopping on a value.

Your example is a fantasy. I do not think that applies anywhere.
But if that example holds can you tell me where is the moral truth in all that? It seems you do not have one.

Personal values =/= morality.

The idea that there are moral facts, or that moral rules are objectively true seems to be reserved to a small confused cadre of posters, since it does not appear in any serious philosophical literature.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Argument appealing to authority. The intricacies of the impact Barney and Friends has on the development of children's values, during their formative years also doesn't appear in any serious philosophical literature. Does that mean that a discussion, about the morality behind the benefits and issues that conditioning children from such a young age, when they haven't the ability think for themselves, isn't allowed?

Tut, tut. Fallacy fallacy!!
I'm not appealing to authority. I was offering a source so that someone could challenge me.
I stand by my statement; " the idea that there are objective moral truths is an idea that can only be found in a confused cadre of posters. Prove me wrong.
Of - if you prefer - tell me an objective moral truth and we can discuss why it is relative and subjective.

Or perhaps you believe that we aren't here to discuss these finer points of morality, so it's easier to say "Stanford doesn't worry about it, neither should we"? Do you really believe that is a good enough argument to pass here, when you still haven't challenge any part of what I've said?

No I love to discuss philosophy - take a look at the title of the Forum.
Put up or shut up I'd say!
Where is the duck in the blancmange. The harder you try to find it the more messing your hands get. There are no moral truths.
I like the new name by the way.
Which one of the confused cadre are you?

[Sculptor]

Note: all your above moral-facts-denying impulses are not based on sound reasoning but merely based on an active ideological impulse - where its origin is from the Logical Positivists. I will prepare a justification on this thesis later.

There are a long list of very good reasons why the Logical-Positivists are thoroughly discredited in the dusts of 20thC history.
LP has failed to produce anything of worth. The first glimmmers of LP started nearly 100 years ago, but by 1970 was as dead as a duck.
It had nothing to offer then and nothing is going to change that.

Your arguments do not come near to their formulation which were clever but useless. Your argument is too full of holes to get near to what their vision was. So how much less worthy is your position?

LP is now a dead duck, but a lot of its principles are still adopted by the Analytic Philosophy and people like you in arguing on 'what is fact' which is no different from what the LPs argued as 'fact'.

You missed my point?
I meant I will produce an explanation [later] on how your view of 'what is fact' is inherited from the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists.

The point is that LP is dead exactly because of it failure to address moral issues.
Facts predate LP, and facts persist beyond LP.
LP is therefore not a valid referent.

[Sculptor]

Note: all your above moral-facts-denying impulses are not based on sound reasoning but merely based on an active ideological impulse - where its origin is from the Logical Positivists. I will prepare a justification on this thesis later.

There are a long list of very good reasons why the Logical-Positivists are thoroughly discredited in the dusts of 20thC history.
LP has failed to produce anything of worth. The first glimmmers of LP started nearly 100 years ago, but by 1970 was as dead as a duck.
It had nothing to offer then and nothing is going to change that.

Your arguments do not come near to their formulation which were clever but useless. Your argument is too full of holes to get near to what their vision was. So how much less worthy is your position?

Of course his buddy in these threads is the guy who tells us we don't know what a question is, the guy who when asked to answer questions insists on being provided with an empirical testing methodology for said answer in advance because otherwise it makes no sense to ask. Skepdick is the only thing approaching a Logical Positivist on this forum.

But because the Putnam video he linked to was mostly a a rant against LP, Vestigial Aquarium thinks that means we are the positivists.

I'm not sure VA knows what he is. I would not grant Skepdick with such a grand title. He'd not know an LP statement if it hit him in the face like a wet fish.

[Skepdick]

Of course his buddy in these threads is the guy who tells us we don't know what a question is, the guy who when asked to answer questions insists on being provided with an empirical testing methodology for said answer in advance because otherwise it makes no sense to ask. Skepdick is the only thing approaching a Logical Positivist on this forum.

It's almost as if lack of superhuman or supernatural source of an Ultimate Truth doesn't entail complete moral randomness for some reason.

Holy fucking irony.

I am willing to bet a lot of money that FlashDangerdork doesn't actually understand that the statement "morality is non-random" is synonymous to the statement "morality is measurable", which is synonymous with the logical expression "morality is decidable", which makes HIM a logical positivist.

I bet FlashDangerdork doesn't even understand why that is.

[Ishamael]

There is no reality that exists independently by itself.

True, when we reflect philosophically we are bound to reach an infinite regression, therefrom Wittgenstein's maxim applies;

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (Tractatus 7)

So, I am just going to quote you, so you can see thanks for looking back and replying to that, and taking it seriously. Those links are also going to be quite interesting. I'll take a look and will get on commenting, for sure.

I always enjoyed Wittgenstein, but there were just a few things that I didn't really accept. First-off, that idea that "There is no reality that exists independently by itself." But I supposed that is the bare minimum that you have to critique, if you want to have a discussion against his philosophies. hahaha

But I should I save that for the other threads?

[Ishamael]

The ENTIRETY of my reply didn't post, and I have errands to run now......so I guess I'll be back in a bit, as I'm more than a bit tiffed. The ONE TIME I don't use notepad to reply....

[Immanuel Can]

...the content is a value a part of Peter's personal ethics. Personal ethics =/= moral truth. Thus, questioning that content makes the question a bad question.

There's actually no such thing as "personal ethics." One can't "owe something" strictly to oneself, so there is no possible "ought" there. Think of it this way: if you were literally the only morally-relevant entity on earth, and there were no other people or other entities to whom you could owe a moral action, what could you possibly "owe it to yourself" to do or be?

Nothing. You'd be free to do whatever you want, and moral considerations would simply be irrelevant.

Even if we try and conceive ethics as the idea of, say, owing oneself to flourish, we can't do so without already knowing that that particular version of "flourishing" is a moral goal. And that requires an external or meta-ethical framework to establish.

So if ethics are strictly and absolutely "personal," there is no ethics or moral duty one can owe at all.

All moral agents make claims,

This is an important admission: a "claim" is a statement made in public, to others, with a view to suggesting they come to think the same. When a moral agent "makes a claim," he's implying, "I think this, and you should too."

Again, it's not actually "personal." It's essentially public.

What's in question is "why should we take that person's claims/value set seriously?"
Well, perhaps if we take their's seriously, then they will take our's seriously?

That's a very poor reason for agreeing with somebody -- it means that we are agreeing to agree without rational consideration, merely out of the hope somebody else will also agree just as foolishly and blindly as we are agreeing. The question of the truth, rationality or accuracy of what we are agreeing with is not even being mentioned there.

That's a rogue's bargain, for sure.

Would moral objectivity not be that underlying principle that is guiding us to proper interactions with each other?... it is something that exists outside of the content of our opinions. Meaning it protects our opinions.

You're mistaking being nice to a person with the idea of agreeing rationally with what he/she says. They're not at all the same thing, and one does not entail the other.

An opinion can be wrong, even if the person offering the opinion is normally a good person. To pretend he/she is then right, when he/she is actually wrong, is not an act of friendship or respect, but a betrayal of their trust. It's not a good way to treat the person, and it doesn't show you take their opinions seriously enough to subject them to rational consideration.

Saying "objective moral values are synonymous with objective moral truths" is false.

Actually it's often true...unless you believe "values" and "truths" are not capable of having the same content.

It is objective that our society forbids rape. That's one of its values. Are you going to then say that that means the statement "Rape is wrong" is not true, merely because that's a value?

One causes a human being to die, torn apart horribly. The other harms nobody, and preserves all human life. And you say they're "two sides of the same coin"? Not to the victims, they're not...and in that term "victim," I include not only the baby but the woman who has been violated and will have to live thereafter with the knowledge she murdered a child she could have brought into the world.

In that equation, nobody wins but the Planned Parenthood abortion "doctor," who picks up the fee for the butchery and sells the child's body parts afterward. All other participants lose.

Of the coin of for or against abortion, there is a position for it and a position against it.

There is a right position and a wrong position...so?

Your phrasing of these couple paragraphs is just one method of arguing against abortion.

Agreed. There are many, not just one reason why abortion is immoral. And even the abortionists know it. That's why whereas the pro-life camp wants women to have all the information they can possibly get, the abortion group is always trying to hide the real facts from the women they exploit. It's not equal, and even the abortionists know it. A woman who was fully informed would never choose abortion unless she were a willful murderess. So they hide the truth, because the deed is unconscionable. Most women are nowhere near so naturally wicked as the abortionists need them to become.

Because if I do not grant your position any value, then I cannot discuss the content of your position with you in a meaningful and productive way.

But to "grant value" does not mean to agree. It means only to say that your position is worthy of the honour of being treated seriously, by being subjected to scrutiny by logic, reasons and evidence, and by featuring in an intelligent debate. A valued opinion is one that is worthy of scrutiny, not one that is simply dismissed or simply accepted without thought.

[Immanuel Can]

it's still a moral opinion which I can explain rationally - and that explanation may persuade others.

What "explanation" is that? You haven't explained why anybody else should be "persuaded" by it...you've just gratuitously claimed they might.

You can't demonstrate moral objectivity,

I can't demonstrate it on your metaphysical presuppositions, it's true.

If Materialism is so, then values do not refer to any real thing at all. But then, "subjective morality," which you do insist exists, is equally just a delusion. It has no substance, because whatever people believe, their belief does not make a thing true or objective. So morality is gone, wholesale.

You would have to be willing to consider the possibility that your metaphysical presuppositions (whether Materialism, or Atheism, or Gradualism, or whatever you profess to take as first principles) could be wrong; and then I could show you why objective morality is rational, given different metaphysical presuppositions.

But can such a thing be demonstrated without addressing such presuppositions? No. For just as I cannot prove to you that Burkina Faso is a real country, and you could deny it endlessly, so long as you had never been there yourself, we are at a stalemate on that.

But the fault is in the presuppositions, not in objective morality per se. Like Burkina Faso, if it exists, it exists.

[Peter Holmes]

it's still a moral opinion which I can explain rationally - and that explanation may persuade others.

What "explanation" is that? You haven't explained why anybody else should be "persuaded" by it...you've just gratuitously claimed they might.

Two things here: what is my explanation for why I morally condemn slavery?; why should anyone be persuaded by my explanation? The first I can't be bothered to set out here. The second is a strange question. Why should anyone be persuaded by any explanation? Because it's rational to be persuaded by rational explanations?

You can't demonstrate moral objectivity,

I can't demonstrate it on your metaphysical presuppositions, it's true.

If Materialism is so, then values do not refer to any real thing at all. But then, "subjective morality," which you do insist exists, is equally just a delusion. It has no substance, because whatever people believe, their belief does not make a thing true or objective. So morality is gone, wholesale.

This is sloppy thinking.

1 The only features of reality that have truth-value are factual assertions.

2 We value things. We say we 'have' values. So are values real things that exist somehow, somewhere? Do they have 'substance'? And can a materialist, naturalist or physicalist talk coherently about values? Are supposed abstract things - such as goodness, moral rightness and wrongness, truth, knowledge, beauty, justice, honesty, integrity, identity, concepts, propositions - are these kinds of things that do or don't exist somewhere, somehow? Does a materialist have to deny they exist? Can't a physicalist experience and talk about beauty? Can't a naturalist be honest?

What and where are abstract things, and in what way do they exist? Are they a bit like fairies, ghosts, spirits, souls, devils, angels and gods?

You would have to be willing to consider the possibility that your metaphysical presuppositions (whether Materialism, or Atheism, or Gradualism, or whatever you profess to take as first principles) could be wrong; and then I could show you why objective morality is rational, given different metaphysical presuppositions.

But can such a thing be demonstrated without addressing such presuppositions? No. For just as I cannot prove to you that Burkina Faso is a real country, and you could deny it endlessly, so long as you had never been there yourself, we are at a stalemate on that.

But the fault is in the presuppositions, not in objective morality per se. Like Burkina Faso, if it exists, it exists.

What a shit analogy. The existence of Burkina Faso can easily be demonstrated - empirically. There are facts - true factual assertions - about it. And any factual assertion about it can be falsified.

Now, do the same for moral rightness and wrongness. I agree that your believing they exist doesn't mean they exist. So - show us they exist.

You can always bleat about metaphysical presuppositions. People who believe in fairies, ghosts, spirits, souls, devils, angels and gods do that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are a long list of very good reasons why the Logical-Positivists are thoroughly discredited in the dusts of 20thC history.
LP has failed to produce anything of worth. The first glimmmers of LP started nearly 100 years ago, but by 1970 was as dead as a duck.
It had nothing to offer then and nothing is going to change that.

Your arguments do not come near to their formulation which were clever but useless. Your argument is too full of holes to get near to what their vision was. So how much less worthy is your position?

LP is now a dead duck, but a lot of its principles are still adopted by the Analytic Philosophy and people like you in arguing on 'what is fact' which is no different from what the LPs argued as 'fact'.

You missed my point?
I meant I will produce an explanation [later] on how your view of 'what is fact' is inherited from the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists.

The point is that LP is dead exactly because of it failure to address moral issues.
Facts predate LP, and facts persist beyond LP.
LP is therefore not a valid referent.

What are you talking about?
You are very ignorant on this.
Provide me references to support your point.

LP failed because the LPs failed to justify their theses.
See;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_p ... sm#Critics

My point is, people like you and those from the Analytic Philosophy community are still hanging ideologically to some of the LPs' principles on the definition of fact in relation to moral arguments.
I have requested many times, prove and demonstrate a fact-in-itself exists as fundamental real rather that the term is merely for practical use.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The idea that there are moral facts, or that moral rules are objectively true seems to be reserved to a small confused cadre of posters, since it does not appear in any serious philosophical literature.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

How can you be so ignorant.
What did the above article support your point.

Note this from the article;

One reason for this is that “morality” seems to be used in two distinct broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense. More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either
descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.


Those [many of them] within the 'normative' category and are moral realists claim there are moral facts.