In my case, I am not asserting moral facts are related to Moral Rightness or Wrongness but are rather to the Neurobiological Facts grounding the inherent Moral Sense related to Moral Sentiments proposed by Earl of Shaftesbury, Hume, Reid, Hutchinson, and other modern moral sense theorists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_sen ... ry#History
The first prominent Moral Sense Theory (especially using the term "sense") is found in Mencius (372–289 BCE).
The eponymous text deals with an innate Moral Sense possessed by all human beings.
All orthodox interpretations of Confucianism accept this view, several unorthodox groups make a point of refuting it (see: Xunzi).
This line of thinking reached its most extreme iteration in xinxue, a form of Neo-Confucianism associated with the Ming Dynasty and Wang Yangming.
In the west, the first prominent Moral Sense Theory is found in Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (1671–1713).
His major work espousing a form of Moral Sense Theory is An Inquiry Concerning Virtue, or Merit (first published in an unauthorized edition in 1699).
Subsequently, Francis Hutcheson (1694–1746) developed a version of Moral Sense Theory.
The chief statements of his theory occur in
An Inquiry Concerning the Original of Our Ideas of Virtue or Moral Good (1725;
Treatise II of An Inquiry Into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue) and
An Essay On the Nature and Conduct of the Passions and Affections, With Illustrations Upon the Moral Sense (1728).
Arguably the most prominent defender of Moral Sense Theory in the history of philosophy is David Hume (1711–1776).
While he discusses Morality in Book 3 of his Treatise of Human Nature (1739–40), Hume's most mature, positive account of the Moral Sense is found in An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751).
Adam Smith also advanced a form of Moral Sense Theory in his The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759).
Smith focused less on a single faculty of the Moral Sense and more on the various sentiments that make up the Moral feelings that ground Moral judgments.
Thomas Reid (1710–1796) defends Moral Sense Theory in his Essays on the Active Powers of the Human Mind.
He compares the Moral Sense to sight and hearing, and defends its veridicality on the same ground as those.
The introduction of Herbert Spencer's Social Statics argued on behalf of Moral Sense Theory.
Arguably the most prominent defender of moral sense theory in the history of philosophy is David Hume (1711–1776).
While he discusses morality in Book 3 [Part 1 Section 1&2*] of his Treatise of Human Nature (1739–40),
Hume's most mature, positive account of the moral sense is found in An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_sen ... ry#History
The Principles of Moral Sense Theory:Moral sense theory (also known as moral sentimentalism) is a theory in moral epistemology and meta-ethics concerning the discovery of moral truths.
Moral sense theory typically holds that distinctions between morality and immorality are discovered by emotional responses to experience.
Some take it to be primarily a view about the nature of moral facts or moral beliefs (a primarily metaphysical view)—this form of the view more often goes by the name "sentimentalism".
Others take the view to be primarily about the nature of justifying moral beliefs (a primarily epistemological view)—this form of the view more often goes by the name "moral sense theory".
However, some theorists take the view to be one which claims that both moral facts and how one comes to be justified in believing them are necessarily bound up with human emotions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_sense_theory
My point:The moral sense is often described as providing information in a way analogous to other sensory modalities, such as sight in the perception of colors. It is contrasted with the way in which one acquires a priori, non-empirical knowledge, such as mathematical knowledge for example.
One way to understand the moral sense is to draw an analogy between it and other kinds of senses.
Beauty is something we see in some faces, artworks and landscapes. We can also hear it in some pieces of music. We clearly do not need an independent aesthetic sense faculty to perceive beauty in the world. Our ordinary five senses are quite enough to observe it, though merely observing something beautiful is not by itself enough to appreciate its beauty. Suppose we give a name to this ability to appreciate the beauty in things we see: let's call it the aesthetic sense.
This aesthetic sense does not come automatically to all people with perfect vision and hearing, so it is fair to describe it as something extra, something not wholly reducible to vision and hearing.
As the aesthetic sense informs us about what is beautiful, we can analogically understand the moral sense as informing us of what is good.
People with a functioning moral sense get a clear impression of wrongness when they see (or perhaps even imagine) someone being mugged, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_sen ... y#Overview
While the Moral Sense Theorists e.g. Hume rejected any 'ought' from 'is',
they nevertheless recognize in some sense moral facts do exist, as such the related morality is objective.
Based on their days, these Moral Sense Theorists could not conceive of the existent of the corresponding physical Moral Facts underlying Moral Sense because the field of Neurosciences was not developed yet.
But in the modern era attention is being directed the Neurobiological basis of the moral sense or inherent moral potential. These are the underlying objective facts of morality.
It is not about the judgments of rightness or wrongness but rather on the real physical facts underlying morality.
What Are Moral Intuitions and Why Should We Care about Them? A Neurobiological Perspective
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27749905
There are loads of research done to justify the moral facts underlying morality.
Meanwhile posters like Peter Holmes and gang are still stuck to the dogmatic 'ancient' paradigm of moral judgments [opinions and beliefs] of rightness or wrongness.
Views?