Enough of your linguistic prescriptivism, you fucking language Nazi!Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:51 pm1 A fact is an accurate description of a feature of reality.
2 If a moral assertion is a fact, it must be an accurate description of a feature of reality.
3 A moral objectivist must be able to show the feature of reality that a supposed moral fact supposedly describes.
4 If there are no such features of reality, so that there are no moral facts, morality isn't and can't be objective. End of.
'rightness' or 'wrongness' is just more of your linguistic prescriptivism. I have no use for those words.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:51 pmThe moral assertion 'One should not kick PH in the testicles' has no truth-value, because 'the wrongness of kicking PH in the testicles' is not a feature of reality that may or may not exist. In the same way, the moral wrongness (or rightness) of eating animals isn't a thing that may or may not exist. Or do you think it is? (Another question you won't address directly, because it inconveniently exposes the fallacy of moral objectivism.)
When I ask the question "Is it wrong to kick Peter Holmes in the testicles?" what I am really asking is "Should I kick Peter Holmes in the testicles?".
The answer is yes or no. It's a Boolean!
Remember that while you claim "One should not kick PH in the testicles." has no truth-value. True/false is also a Boolean!
Should we eat animals? Boolean!
No, we shouldn't eat animals because CO2 emissions causes global warming. The "It's wrong to eat animals" is just a weaponized shaming tactic!
By making meat-eating socially unacceptable (e.g 'wrong") we convince people (who can't think for themselves and can't connect the dots between meat-eating and CO2 emissions) into adjusting their meat-eating behavior.