PH's counter is actually grounded upon an illusion, i.e. illusory facts.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 4:56 pm Elsewhere,, VA has kindly offered a travesty of my argument against moral objectivism.
So here's VA's own argument for moral objectivism.
P1 A fact exists only within a 'framework and system of knowledge'.
P2 There is a morality 'framework and system of knowledge'.
C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.
My Counter;Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 5:34 pm What we call water would be what we call H2O even if the science of chemistry didn't exist.
That's the nature of facts. We can know and describe them only if they exist in the first place.
And that's why VA's theory [P1 & [P2] is trash. It gets the whole business of knowledge back-to-front.
You CANNOT assert 'Water is H20' without any reference to the implied human-based-science-chemistry-FSK.
Re 'What we call water' there is no such thing as 'that-What' before it is called water.
The 'that-what' is merely a speculated thought, i.e. a linguistic thing within the human based linguistic FSK. This is the problem with the Bottom-up approach.
You are begging the question by assuming there pre-exists a 'that-What' which you subsequently dress with words call 'water' then 'water is H20'.
What is most realistic is the "Top-Down" approach which is based on real experiences supported by verifiable and justifiable evidences, NOT based on speculation.
Point is we have real experience of something that is 'wet', fluid, not-solid, always finding its own level, etc. i.e. of a certain same pattern with consistence features everywhere.
We then [by consensus for communication sake] name this experience of that-pattern 'water' [sign] within the linguistic FSK.
To get more details we determine this consistent pattern is 'Water is H2O' from within the human-based-science-chemistry-FSK.
Why we ended up calling that consistent pattern within reality 'water' [or whatever the name] is for the purpose of communication to facilitate survival because 'water' is very critical for human survival. This is within the human-conditioned-linguistic FSK.
Why experiencing, realizing, understanding and knowing 'water is H20' within the human-conditioned-science-Chemistry-FSK is also very critical is because it facilitates survival, to the point we can create our own water [via chemical processes] if there is no water or to analyze water for other useful purposes ultimately to facilitate survival.
Thus whatever we claimed as 'facts' are human-conditioned-FSK-facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
It is critical to understand the conditions of whatever-the-fact [FSK-conditioned], its degree of objectivity, its weaknesses, its usefulness to humanity and how it can facilitate survival or other human interests.
That's it! there is no need to speculate 'that-what' [the 'fact-by-itself'] before it was called 'water' or 'water is H20'.
Now why there are people like PH who are so dogmatic in insisting there are only facts-in-themselves independent of the human conditions and condemn those [FSK-Conditioned facts] who disagree with them is because,
they are suffering from some terrible existential crisis and thus the need to defend and protect their consonances [based on illusions].
Such psychological conditions are the same with the theists with their speculated illusory God.
So, my argument remain valid and sound;
P1 A fact exists only within a 'framework and system of knowledge'.
P2 There is a morality 'framework and system of knowledge'.
C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.