Ownness (sumthin' short, pithy, and raw; red meat)

[Veritas Aequitas]

The issue with "is" from "ought" is the question of enforcement.
This is what Hume implied, i.e.
"How the hell did an enforceable ought came out of the blue from a illusory being i.e. God. - Why should anyone comply with this ought from an illusory God?"

However from the secular perspective, the question of ought, is that it is not enforceable.
Whatever ought that is enforceable is not 'morality' per se as in Philosophy.
What is enforceable in general belongs to Politics.
What is enforceable by a threat of Hell belongs to theism.

Show me wherein the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics where morality-proper is related to enforcement by external parties or a threat from God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Here are two main perspectives of Morality and Ethics;

• Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
  
  Utilitarianism is a family of consequentialist ethical theories that promotes actions that maximize happiness and well-being for the affected individuals.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

The Philosophy of Morality and Ethics by default is individual-centric and not based on 'oughts' that are to be enforceable by external parties.

Any mentioned of theistic morality is merely pseudo-morality because of the enforcement of a threat of Hell by a God.

All moral oughts must be verified and justified to empirical facts and reinforced with the finest [exhausted to the limit] philosophical reasoning.

The ought,

• "No human ought to own another human" [re Chattel Slavery]

the agreement to the above can be verified empirically by asking whether each individual want to be enslaved by another as a chattel slave;

• 1. the individual him or herself
  2. historically - normal person will agree to the above ought
  3. literature review -normal person will agree to the above ought
  4. questioning one closest kins, friends and associates
  5. polling every human on Earth

The individual can confirm the agreement within 1-4.

Method 5 will be quite a task, but not an impossibility.
If we can poll 80% of all human [in the future] that would be credible and the answer is likely they all will agree with the above ought.

Whilst the empirical evidence is not 100%, we then use the highest and finest philosophical reasoning to reason for method 5.

Thus from the above process we can determine the 'ought'

• "No human ought to own another human"

because no normal human on Earth would volunteer to be enslaved by another human.

Yes, there will be exceptions with some perverts which would be certified by psychiatrist as abnormal and not normal human beings.

I had emphasized the above 'ought' is not enforceable on anyone by external parties.

Since Morality and Ethics are individual centric, thus there ought to be changes in the brain to trigger and activate the inherent faculty of morality to drive the individual toward higher moral competences.

Btw, the above changes is not effective for the present generations but only for future generations if we start the discussion to implement effective strategies now.

Enforcement is not the issue when it comes to moral objectivity - the claim that there are moral facts - that an ought assertion can be objective.

Whatever facts we deploy to justify a moral assertion - how ever rational, scientific, evidenced, peer reviewed, and so on, and so on - to assert an ought is to express a judgement - a belief or opinion - and that must be subjective. That's just the way it is.

You are ignorant by assuming a 'judgment' must be a belief or opinion.
Note definition of 'judgment' below;

• judgment = the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.

Philosophically, 'come to sensible conclusions' is via logic, i.e. the subsumption of the minor premise within the major premise to arrive at the conclusion - that is judgment.

I had explained and argued,
scientific judgments [knowledge - JTB] which is general accepted as objective starts as subjective opinions [abduction] then they become personal subjective beliefs of a scientist, then it is processed via the Scientific Method and accepted via testings and peers [subjects] review as objective.
Thus a scientific judgment aka scientific ought is not a subjective belief nor opinion but an objective judgment based on intersubjectivity.

Therefore all scientific theories, knowledge, truths, theories, facts are judgment.

Thus if I express a scientific judgment
'All human ought to breathe else they die"
is not a belief nor opinion, but rather that is an objective scientific judgment, knowledge, truth, theories and fact.

I have argued and demonstrated we can derive a moral ought [moral judgment, law, rule] as objective via subjectivity as with objective scientific knowledge.

Despite my proof and demonstration,
your inability to accept a moral ought as justified intersubjectively cannot be objective is due to very blind strong resistance from your psychological confirmation bias.

[Peter Holmes]

Enforcement is not the issue when it comes to moral objectivity - the claim that there are moral facts - that an ought assertion can be objective.

Whatever facts we deploy to justify a moral assertion - how ever rational, scientific, evidenced, peer reviewed, and so on, and so on - to assert an ought is to express a judgement - a belief or opinion - and that must be subjective. That's just the way it is.

You are ignorant by assuming a 'judgment' must be a belief or opinion.
Note definition of 'judgment' below;

• judgment = the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.

Philosophically, 'come to sensible conclusions' is via logic, i.e. the subsumption of the minor premise within the major premise to arrive at the conclusion - that is judgment.

I had explained and argued,
scientific judgments [knowledge - JTB] which is general accepted as objective starts as subjective opinions [abduction] then they become personal subjective beliefs of a scientist, then it is processed via the Scientific Method and accepted via testings and peers [subjects] review as objective.
Thus a scientific judgment aka scientific ought is not a subjective belief nor opinion but an objective judgment based on intersubjectivity.

Therefore all scientific theories, knowledge, truths, theories, facts are judgment.

Thus if I express a scientific judgment
'All human ought to breathe else they die"
is not a belief nor opinion, but rather that is an objective scientific judgment, knowledge, truth, theories and fact.

I have argued and demonstrated we can derive a moral ought [moral judgment, law, rule] as objective via subjectivity as with objective scientific knowledge.

Despite my proof and demonstration,
your inability to accept a moral ought as justified intersubjectively cannot be objective is due to very blind strong resistance from your psychological confirmation bias.

No - you are ignorant. Na na na-na na. My brain can duff up your brain. Wanna take this outside?

Pay attention. How we arrive at making an assertion is not the point. What matters is the nature of the assertion: is it factual or not? Does it make a factual claim about reality - one that's true or false, independent from anyone's judgement? Or does it express a value-judgement of some kind with no factual truth-value? That's what the objectivity and subjectivity of assertions is about.

Of course individuals have to judge if a factual assertion is true or false, and of course that judgement is subjective. Der. But that doesn't mean the assertion itself is subjective, or that its truth-value is a matter of opinion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Enforcement is not the issue when it comes to moral objectivity - the claim that there are moral facts - that an ought assertion can be objective.

Whatever facts we deploy to justify a moral assertion - how ever rational, scientific, evidenced, peer reviewed, and so on, and so on - to assert an ought is to express a judgement - a belief or opinion - and that must be subjective. That's just the way it is.

You are ignorant by assuming a 'judgment' must be a belief or opinion.
Note definition of 'judgment' below;

• judgment = the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.

Philosophically, 'come to sensible conclusions' is via logic, i.e. the subsumption of the minor premise within the major premise to arrive at the conclusion - that is judgment.

I had explained and argued,
scientific judgments [knowledge - JTB] which is general accepted as objective starts as subjective opinions [abduction] then they become personal subjective beliefs of a scientist, then it is processed via the Scientific Method and accepted via testings and peers [subjects] review as objective.
Thus a scientific judgment aka scientific ought is not a subjective belief nor opinion but an objective judgment based on intersubjectivity.

Therefore all scientific theories, knowledge, truths, theories, facts are judgment.

Thus if I express a scientific judgment
'All human ought to breathe else they die"
is not a belief nor opinion, but rather that is an objective scientific judgment, knowledge, truth, theories and fact.

I have argued and demonstrated we can derive a moral ought [moral judgment, law, rule] as objective via subjectivity as with objective scientific knowledge.

Despite my proof and demonstration,
your inability to accept a moral ought as justified intersubjectively cannot be objective is due to very blind strong resistance from your psychological confirmation bias.

No - you are ignorant. Na na na-na na. My brain can duff up your brain. Wanna take this outside?

Pay attention. How we arrive at making an assertion is not the point. What matters is the nature of the assertion: is it factual or not? Does it make a factual claim about reality - one that's true or false, independent from anyone's judgement? Or does it express a value-judgement of some kind with no factual truth-value? That's what the objectivity and subjectivity of assertions is about.

Are scientific knowledge factual or not?

Surely the final scientific knowledge make factual claim about reality independent from anyone's judgment.

Of course individuals have to judge if a factual assertion is true or false, and of course that judgement is subjective. Der. But that doesn't mean the assertion itself is subjective, or that its truth-value is a matter of opinion.

Note the objective moral ought that I concluded is not a personal opinion, but rather it is based on intersubjective consensus, i.e. thus intersubjective.
Note objectivity = intersubjectivity, i.e. intersubjective consensus.

You can test it yourself for a start.
Do you want to be owned by another human as a chattel slave, in relation to the moral ought,
No human shall own another human as a chattel slave.
I presumed you will not want to be owned by another human as a chattel slave.

Then you can confirm it with all other individual humans, starting with your spouse, nearest kins, friends, associates, and others.
[those who disagree are not normal human beings].

Thus what we have is an objective ought based on intersubjective consensus by all subjects concerned, i.e. humans.

objectivity = intersubjectivity, i.e. intersubjective consensus,
how can you dispute this?

[Peter Holmes]

Thus what we have is an objective ought based on intersubjective consensus by all subjects concerned, i.e. humans.

objectivity = intersubjectivity, i.e. intersubjective consensus,
how can you dispute this?

No, you're still missing the point. An assertion is objective if it makes a factual claim about a feature of reality, that may be true or false because the feature of reality may or may not exist - and its existence has nothing to do with subjective judgement.

For example, if the earth is an oblate spheroid, the factual assertion 'the earth is an oblate spheroid' is objective and true. And its objectivity and truth have NOTHING TO DO WITH INTERSUBJECTIVE CONSENSUS. It wouldn't matter if not one person thinks the assertion is true. It would still be true. That's objectivity. What we call objectivity, and what we call truth, are NOT matters of intersubjective consensus. (How many times and how many ways?)

And, to clarify: an 'ought' - a moral assertion - reached by intersubjective consensus - STILL EXPRESSES A JUDGEMENT AND THEREFORE IS SUBJECTIVE, BECAUSE INTERSUBJECTIVITY IS JUST COLLECTIVE SUBJECTIVITY.

[Skepdick]

No, you're still missing the point. An assertion is objective if it makes a factual claim about a feature of reality, that may be true or false because the feature of reality may or may not exist - and its existence has nothing to do with subjective judgement.

But ALL assertions are made by subjects.

For example, if the earth is an oblate spheroid, the factual assertion 'the earth is an oblate spheroid' is objective and true.

How did you assert that?

And its objectivity and truth have NOTHING TO DO WITH INTERSUBJECTIVE CONSENSUS.

Its 'objectivity' and 'truth' have everything to do with your subjective assertion of those properties.

It wouldn't matter if not one person thinks the assertion is true. It would still be true. That's objectivity.

Can you even make sense of your own philosophy? You keep insisting that "truth" is a property of assertions.
If nobody is asserting X how could X possibly be true?

What we call objectivity, and what we call truth, are NOT matters of intersubjective consensus. (How many times and how many ways?)

In as many times and as many ways it takes for you to understand that you are wrong.

The conceptions of "objectivity" and "truth" and the very meaning of those words and how they OUGHT TO BE USED is a matters of intersubjective consensus.

But, if there are no such things as moral oughts, then there can be no such things as linguistic oughts either. You prescribe a language in which "facts exists" is a meaningful thing to say, but you can't even tell us what it means for something to exist.

[RCSaunders]

I very much doubt most slave owners believe they are doing wrong. I think most do regard their slaves as inferior to themselves in some way, but not to justify what they are doing. I doubt if they think it needs to be justified.

I don't believe a man can look at another and believe it's okay to leash the other while not acceptin' the leash himself. No, the slaver knows it wrong. He just doesn't care. Why he doesn't care, well, that's another topic.


I think it is wrong to own slaves because it is contrary to the slave owner's own nature as a human being,

And I think slavery is wrong cuz a man belongs to himself. The injury is to the man who is leashed.


Owning slaves is attempting to live on another's efforts when one's nature requires them to live by their own efforts, making the slave owner dependent on someone else for his own life and welfare. By owning a slave he essentially gives up his own autonomy and responsibility for his own life.

Nah. The slaver is simply usin' a man as a draft animal, or a sex toy, or a cotton-picker. The slaver isn't makin' himself any more dependent by way of slavery than a modern farmer is by way of a harvester, or a dweeb by way of a blow-up doll. The slaver is a monster, not a milquetoast. His sin is not violatin' his own nature; the slaver's sin is violatin' the other man's ownness.


There is no doubt that both the slave and slave owner are harmed

Well, you're half-right.

I'll take that half and run with it. It's not up to me to make sure the other guy doesn't have slaves, only up to me to not have slaves and not be one myself, because that's what's best for me. (I would help others escape slavery or avoid it if I could, because that's good for me to.)

Our reasons might be a little different, but I think we're on the same side.

Thanks for the interesting, "short, pithy, and raw; red meat."

[henry quirk]

It's not up to me to make sure the other guy doesn't have slaves, only up to me to not have slaves and not be one myself, because that's what's best for me. (I would help others escape slavery or avoid it if I could, because that's good for me to.)

yep


Our reasons might be a little different, but I think we're on the same side.

yep


Thanks for the interesting, "short, pithy, and raw; red meat."

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thus what we have is an objective ought based on intersubjective consensus by all subjects concerned, i.e. humans.

objectivity = intersubjectivity, i.e. intersubjective consensus,
how can you dispute this?

No, you're still missing the point. An assertion is objective if it makes a factual claim about a feature of reality, that may be true or false because the feature of reality may or may not exist - and its existence has nothing to do with subjective judgement.

For example, if the earth is an oblate spheroid, the factual assertion 'the earth is an oblate spheroid' is objective and true. And its objectivity and truth have NOTHING TO DO WITH INTERSUBJECTIVE CONSENSUS. It wouldn't matter if not one person thinks the assertion is true. It would still be true. That's objectivity. What we call objectivity, and what we call truth, are NOT matters of intersubjective consensus. (How many times and how many ways?)

And, to clarify: an 'ought' - a moral assertion - reached by intersubjective consensus - STILL EXPRESSES A JUDGEMENT AND THEREFORE IS SUBJECTIVE, BECAUSE INTERSUBJECTIVITY IS JUST COLLECTIVE SUBJECTIVITY.

I argued Scientific knowledge is objective and it is leveraged on intersubjective consensus. You did not counter this point but deflected.

We have gone through this before.
I fully understand your point re objectivity but I do not agree with it because your view is based on that of Philosophical Realism, i.e.

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
-wiki

So from the Philosophical Realism perspective,
yes, your "the factual assertion 'the earth is an oblate spheroid' is objective and true" is acceptable to you.
That is quite a common sense view - a kid can claim it is independent and objective.
But philosophical realism is not philosophically realistic at all.

Note you stated;

• Peter Holmes: if the earth is an oblate spheroid, the factual assertion 'the earth is an oblate spheroid' is objective and true. And its objectivity and truth have NOTHING TO DO WITH INTERSUBJECTIVE CONSENSUS.

Note your use of "if" you forgot the "then" where only subjects can postulate an "if-then".
This meant the resultant is inter-connected with the subjects, i.e. conditional and thus cannot be "ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc." as claimed by philosophical realism.

One point is you are not realistic and you do not reflect deeper philosophically.
Fact is humans are part and parcel of reality [all there is].
As such there is no way your point,
"It wouldn't matter if not one person thinks the assertion is true. It would still be true"
can be valid in the ultimate sense.

I'll state again,
Whatever Scientific fact, truths, knowledge are objective and there is no way such facts can be objective without the interaction with human scientists and INTERSUBJECTIVE CONSENSUS.
Note once a scientific fact is accepted, it is objective and is independent of any individual's beliefs and opinion.

The scientific fact 'water is H2O' is objective regardless of any individual subjective views, but that "scientific fact 'water is H2O' " as objective is a resultant from the interactions of subjects, thus ultimately subjective.
So objectivity = intersubjectivity.

I had applied the same above same principles in deriving the secular objective moral ought abstracted from empirical evidences supported with sound philosophical reasoning.

[Peter Holmes]

Thus what we have is an objective ought based on intersubjective consensus by all subjects concerned, i.e. humans.

objectivity = intersubjectivity, i.e. intersubjective consensus,
how can you dispute this?

No, you're still missing the point. An assertion is objective if it makes a factual claim about a feature of reality, that may be true or false because the feature of reality may or may not exist - and its existence has nothing to do with subjective judgement.

For example, if the earth is an oblate spheroid, the factual assertion 'the earth is an oblate spheroid' is objective and true. And its objectivity and truth have NOTHING TO DO WITH INTERSUBJECTIVE CONSENSUS. It wouldn't matter if not one person thinks the assertion is true. It would still be true. That's objectivity. What we call objectivity, and what we call truth, are NOT matters of intersubjective consensus. (How many times and how many ways?)

And, to clarify: an 'ought' - a moral assertion - reached by intersubjective consensus - STILL EXPRESSES A JUDGEMENT AND THEREFORE IS SUBJECTIVE, BECAUSE INTERSUBJECTIVITY IS JUST COLLECTIVE SUBJECTIVITY.

I argued Scientific knowledge is objective and it is leveraged on intersubjective consensus. You did not counter this point but deflected.

We have gone through this before.
I fully understand your point re objectivity but I do not agree with it because your view is based on that of Philosophical Realism, i.e.

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
-wiki

So from the Philosophical Realism perspective,
yes, your "the factual assertion 'the earth is an oblate spheroid' is objective and true" is acceptable to you.
That is quite a common sense view - a kid can claim it is independent and objective.
But philosophical realism is not philosophically realistic at all.

Note you stated;

• Peter Holmes: if the earth is an oblate spheroid, the factual assertion 'the earth is an oblate spheroid' is objective and true. And its objectivity and truth have NOTHING TO DO WITH INTERSUBJECTIVE CONSENSUS.

Note your use of "if" you forgot the "then" where only subjects can postulate an "if-then".
This meant the resultant is inter-connected with the subjects, i.e. conditional and thus cannot be "ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc." as claimed by philosophical realism.

One point is you are not realistic and you do not reflect deeper philosophically.
Fact is humans are part and parcel of reality [all there is].
As such there is no way your point,
"It wouldn't matter if not one person thinks the assertion is true. It would still be true"
can be valid in the ultimate sense.

I'll state again,
Whatever Scientific fact, truths, knowledge are objective and there is no way such facts can be objective without the interaction with human scientists and INTERSUBJECTIVE CONSENSUS.
Note once a scientific fact is accepted, it is objective and is independent of any individual's beliefs and opinion.

The scientific fact 'water is H2O' is objective regardless of any individual subjective views, but that "scientific fact 'water is H2O' " as objective is a resultant from the interactions of subjects, thus ultimately subjective.
So objectivity = intersubjectivity.

I had applied the same above same principles in deriving the secular objective moral ought abstracted from empirical evidences supported with sound philosophical reasoning.

1 That an assertion must be produced by an individual subject does not mean that all assertions are subjective. That's just a misunderstanding of the word 'subjective', which means 'a matter of judgement, belief or opinion'.

2 What we call objectivity is independence from judgement, belief or opinion, and this is related to what we call truth. It's been fashionable to deny that objectivity and truth exist, or that they're not what we say they are - both mistakes deriving from the myth of abstract things - an ancient metaphysical delusion. The claim that objectivity and truth are matters of intersubjective consensus is an example of this delusion at work.

3 What we call facts are either states-of-affairs or linguistic expressions asserting states-of-affairs which are true in context and given the way we use the signs involved. States-of affairs (features of reality) exist or existed independently from us, and are not linguistic and so have no truth-value. But we produce factual assertions (linguistic expressions) that have truth-value.

4 How we produce factual assertions has no bearing on their (contextual) truth-value, because they either do or don't assert features of reality that exist independently from us and any perception of them. That we may not perceive or ever be able to perceive some feature of reality has no bearing on whether or not it exists. And for that reason, that we may not know or ever be able to know the truth-value of a factual assertion has no bearing on its actual truth-value. That's why the claim that objectivity and truth are matters of intersubjective consensus is stupid and dangerous nonsense.

[Age]

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).

Adult man, and woman, in these days of when this is being written, could actually more accurately be said to be owned by money, greed, and selfish rather than to their own selves.

Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).


Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

-----

There's more to say, but I'll lay the rest out on the table as you folks question, criticize, or dismiss.

Having the love of money, greed, and selfishness is wrong, and is therefore in your terms a 'moral fact'. But, what has this got to do with anything?

Besides you doing those wrong things, which are caused by you being controlled by your love of money, your greediness, and your selfishness, you have also informed us of how you enslave others as well.

Thee Truth IS you, and woman, do not belong to "yourselves". In fact you do not even know thy 'Self' yet, let alone your 'self'. One would have to know who they are before they could say they belong to them 'self'. So, until you, or them, can answer that age old question, 'Who am 'I'?', properly and correctly, then all of 'you' will just remaining slaves to the money, greed, and selfishness that you all belong to now. Who, and what, has more control over all of 'you' now is not necessarily who you think and believe it is.

[henry quirk]

you have also informed us of how you enslave others as well

Me?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'll state again,
Whatever Scientific fact, truths, knowledge are objective and there is no way such facts can be objective without the interaction with human scientists and INTERSUBJECTIVE CONSENSUS.
Note once a scientific fact is accepted, it is objective and is independent of any individual's beliefs and opinion.

The scientific fact 'water is H2O' is objective regardless of any individual subjective views, but that "scientific fact 'water is H2O' " as objective is a resultant from the interactions of subjects, thus ultimately subjective.
So objectivity = intersubjectivity.

I had applied the same above same principles in deriving the secular objective moral ought abstracted from empirical evidences supported with sound philosophical reasoning.

1 That an assertion must be produced by an individual subject does not mean that all assertions are subjective. That's just a misunderstanding of the word 'subjective', which means 'a matter of judgement, belief or opinion'.

Your thinking is too shallow in this case.
What you are referring to is personal subjective judgment, belief or opinion.

When a judgment is made by a large group of subjects [individuals] within a Framework of Knowledge with proper procedures, the judgment is objective.

• Take for example;
  When X is convicted as a serial killer and sentenced to death in a US court of law, that is an objective fact, i.e. a legal fact conditioned upon US Laws.
  This objective fact is based on the judgment of the selected jury, i.e. a group of human subjects. Thus this objective fact is fundamentally subjective, i.e. intersubjective.

You cannot deny the above straightforward explanation.

It is the same with objective moral oughts which are justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.

2 What we call objectivity is independence from judgement, belief or opinion, and this is related to what we call truth. It's been fashionable to deny that objectivity and truth exist, or that they're not what we say they are - both mistakes deriving from the myth of abstract things - an ancient metaphysical delusion.
The claim that objectivity and truth are matters of intersubjective consensus is an example of this delusion at work.

Note again, objectivity is independent of personal subjective judgment but objectivity is conditioned upon group judgment.

So you are accusing objective scientific knowledge as delusional works by scientists?
So Einstein was delusional with his E=MC2?

3 What we call facts are either states-of-affairs or linguistic expressions asserting states-of-affairs which are true in context and given the way we use the signs involved. States-of affairs (features of reality) exist or existed independently from us, and are not linguistic and so have no truth-value. But we produce factual assertions (linguistic expressions) that have truth-value.

I have already argued you are mistaken when you are relying on Philosophical Realism which is not realistic.

From a very childish philosophical perspective, things in reality "appear" to be independent of human beings. Even a small child can express that point.

But from a more realistic perspective of reality,
States-of affairs (features of reality) CANNOT exist or existed independently from us humans, because humans are part and parcel of reality [the whole states-of-affair].
This is not a superficial claim but have been presented by Philosophical Anti-Realist from the beginning of Philosophy. Note Heraclitus, Protagoras, [circa 500BCE] Eastern philosophies of Buddhism, Janism, etc.

You just cannot insist on being ignorant of the above more realistic counter view to your kindergarten Philosophical Realism views.
Suggest you read up the views of the Philosophical anti-Realists and offer your counter argument to prove they are delusional.

Actually your insistence of Philosophical Realism as absolute is delusional.

4 How we produce factual assertions has no bearing on their (contextual) truth-value, because they either do or don't assert features of reality that exist independently from us and any perception of them. That we may not perceive or ever be able to perceive some feature of reality has no bearing on whether or not it exists. And for that reason, that we may not know or ever be able to know the truth-value of a factual assertion has no bearing on its actual truth-value. That's why the claim that objectivity and truth are matters of intersubjective consensus is stupid and dangerous nonsense.

I'll say again,

From a more deeper philosophical reflection from common sense;
How can features of reality exist independently from us [humans] and any perception of them,
when,
we humans are intricately part and parcel of that features-of-reality?
Think!

Your insistence of Philosophical Realism as absolute is delusional, because the given-object of reality in your case is merely presumed to exists out there separated from the philosophical realist by a REALITY-GAP.
I wonder you understand the concept of the Reality-Gap which invoke Russell to proclaim
"perhaps there is no table at all" even when we are seeing a table right in front of us.

I hope you do not skip the critical points and deflecting to something else.
Provide counter arguments to my arguments above.

[RCSaunders]

you have also informed us of how you enslave others as well

Me?

How quickly a good thread is destroyed by the, "philosophy," (self-induced psychosis) of VA and Age.

Hang in there!

[henry quirk]

you have also informed us of how you enslave others as well

Me?

How quickly a good thread is destroyed by the, "philosophy," (self-induced psychosis) of VA and Age.

Hang in there!

No worries: free speech and all that free wheelin' crap.

[RCSaunders]

No worries: free speech and all that free wheelin' crap.

I'm all for free speech which also means free to not listen to or provide the platform for someone else's speech.