The problem is PH's definition of 'what is fact' as a 'matter of fact' [Analytic] is based on the views inherited from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and the classical analytic philosophers.
From this bastardized perspective of what is fact, PH insist there are no moral facts.
BUT, the point is MY definition of 'what is fact' is not the same as PH's fact as 'matter of fact' [A].
My definition of what is fact is dependent of what is empirically and philosophically verifiable and justifiable within a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Example, scientific facts, economic facts, social facts, legal facts, historical facts, etc.
see my version of what is fact.
What is a Fact?
There are Moral Facts
In the more modern philosophy it is argued there are no 'matter of fact [A]'.
Here is my arguments why there are no matter-of-fact in the Analytical Philosophical sense,
There are no 'matter of fact' [Analytic] as argued by classical analytic philosophers.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:48 amIn the first there is 'No Fact of the Matter' in the real sense and 'matter of fact' is a term favored by the bastardized philosophers of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophy.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:10 pm 'Joe killed Pete' is a factual assertion with a truth-value: (classically) true or false. There is a fact of the matter.
'Humans are programmed not to kill humans' is a factual assertion with a truth-value: (classically) true or false. There is a fact of the matter.
'No human ought to kill humans' is NOT a factual assertion with a truth-value. It expresses an opinion with which we can agree or disagree. There is no fact of the matter.
It really is very, very simple.
See:
No Fact of the Matter
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713659756
Rorty referenced Quine re 'matter of fact'.
Here is another counter against No Fact-of-the-Matter [A],
- See Words and Objections: Essays on the Work of W. V. Quine, ed. Donald Davidson and Jaakko Hintikka (Dordrecht, 1 969), p. 303, where Quine says:
Consider . . . the totality of truths of nature, known and unknown, observable and unobservable, past and future.
The point about indeterminacy of translation is that it withstands even all this truth, the whole truth about nature.
This is what I mean by saying that, where indeterminacy of translation applies, there is no real question of right choice; there is no fact of the matter even to within the acknowledged under-determination of a theory of nature.
Rorty- Mirror of Nature pg. 194
As I had stated you are stuck within a dogmatic silo [with the bastardized philosophers of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophy.] and is ignorant the world had moved on with a greater range of modern knowledge.
- On What it Takes for There to Be No Fact of the Matter
JODY AZZOUNI & OTAVIO ´ BUENO
We’re not sure which philosopher should be credited with the first what we’ll call non-factualist claim. But one of the most famous (and influential) early claims of this sort, one of there being no fact of the matter—and you’ll know about this one, because of its fame and influence—is Quine’s indeterminacy of translation thesis.
................................
Whatever is fact is conditioned upon its specific FSK with its inbuilt truth-value.
What is a moral fact is conditioned upon the moral FSK with its inbuilt truth-value.
The problem is you are stuck with the bastardized version of "what is fact" adopted from the logical positivists [not defunct] and classical analytical philosophy.
I have repeated a "million" times, the moral FSK is as credible as the scientific FSK, thus if you deny the moral FSK you are only your way to deny the scientific FSK and its scientific facts.
Views?