Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:13 pm
A masochist may disagree, and there's no fact of the matter.
Like a baryocentrist may disagree with a heliocentrist? Much irony!
Was it not you who insisted that facts are true within a particular context and perspective? You aren't a masochist, are you? So from your context and perspective is the sentence "I should avoid getting kicked in the testicles" true or not?
I notice you are avoiding an answer here... I wonder why.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:13 pm
But it isn't a moral assertion: 'it is morally wrong to get kicked in the testicles' makes no sense. Why should it be morally wrong?
An expression containing the word 'should' isn't always a moral assertion. How basic does this have to get?
Now you have definitely crossed into the realm of linguistic prescriptivism!
The phrase "morally wrong" does not need to appear in the sentence for it to become a moral assertion.
"One should not murder" is the exact same sentiment as "It is wrong to murder".
"One should not kick others in the testicles" is exactly the same sentiment as "it is wrong to kick people in the testicles".
Objective morality is the socially prescribed behavioural norms you agree and adhere to.
That people by and large behave in accordance and adherence with these moral norms is an objective fact.
It is not a linguistic notion. It is a behaviouristic one.