It is often a warning sign when arguments use the passive voice. 'Today there is recognition'. It makes it sound like we are dealing with some universal or objective authority, but if you put it in an active voice sentence the holes appear.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:50 am Today, there is recognition that objective moral facts do exist.
You are not using 'moral fact' in the sense it is used in philosophy if you think that psychology professor is supporting the idea of moral facts. Because a human or even most humans have some innate/inborn moral sense, does not make that moral sense/tendency a moral fact. And notice that there is nothing in that article that says any particular position, moral position, is based on moral facts. Different values, morals, can develop out of the categories these infant urges to do good and not bad or to be fair. But fair, good, bad acts will be judged differently by different people, including infants. It would be funny to put the urges of babies up as moral facts, since anyone who has spent time taking care of a baby knows it's good they are not armed and have guns.Here is one clue where moral facts are inherent within humanity;
Your ideas on morality is very outdated which is likely to keep people in the dark ages.The Moral Life of Babies
Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
To have a moral fact, means that one can demonstrate that something is morally good, period. The professor is not arguing in favor of moral facts. He is arguing in favor of some aspects of people's moral positions NOT being dependent on experience. IOW he is against a tabula rasa idea of morals, that we only learn what is moral from others (parents, etc.).
He has not demonstrated, remotely, that some acts are objectively moral and some others are not.
And any claim that he has demonstrated the existence of moral facts would entail that the moral authority is infant social mammals. Why not a non-carnivore, like sheep infants? They would be much more likely to think that not killing is good than a carnivore infant.
A moral fact is not a conclusion within someone's FSK. It would say that some moral conclusions are wrong and some right period. To use 'moral fact' in the dependent contingent way you do is to use the word in a near useless idiosyncratic way.
By the way: I used the not killing example because it seemed like not killing being good was one of your moral facts.
It may turn out to be a fact that humans have innate moral tendencies. This does not make these tendencies facts. In fact, they might turn out to be counterproductive, even, let alone anyone being able to demonstrate they are objective morals.
And talk about subjectivity using babies innate categories, which produce all sorts of contradictory morals, in an appeal to authority.