When faced with a FACT.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:14 amThe idea of 'moral opinion' is merely a derogatory term introduced by some low class moral philosophers.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:16 am So you can't show how a moral assertion can follow logically from a factual assertion. So you can see why your appeal to reason and evidence is incoherent. Whatever facts and arguments we deploy to justify a moral opinion, it remains an opinion - by definition. And others can deploy the same facts differently, or different facts, to justify different a moral opinion. And that's our moral predicament.
Your idea of an "opinion" is false;
That is all you have. A random ad hominem followed by denial.
ALL moral statements are opinions. That is an objective fact.I have presented this many times;
Opinion= a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
The moral fact I presented is justified from scientific facts, other knowledge and philosophical reasoning.
Are you sure you understand Normative Ethics thoroughly?Btw, if you think induction can ride to the rescue, please show how a factual premise can induce a moral conclusion. (I assure you, you won't be able to - but you still haven't cracked the conceptual problem - recognised the category error - so feel free to find out for yourself.)
Btw, if you think a normative approach can demonstrate the existence of moral facts, please show an example. (You'll find it doesn't.)
I don't believe you do.
Re induction, as I had demonstrated, you can do a test and ask every normal human whether they will volunteer to be stopped from breathing till they die.
Any normal person will arrive at the same answer intuitively and this can be confirmed by induction.
Would you dispute this?
In addition I have introduced philosophical reasoning to support how I have arrived at the moral conclusion, i.e. a moral fact or moral standard.
I had also argued, if other various types of Framework and System can generate their respective facts, why can a Framework and System of Morality generate moral facts?
I believe they are very critical otherwise your arguments will be full of holes if you do not counter the critical counters I have presented especially your reliance on fact and 'state of affairs' from the Philosophical Realists perspective which is not realistic all at.And btw, I choose not to waste time dealing with every one of your specious arguments and misconceived appeals to misconstrued authorities.
If your ground is unrealistic how can you conclusion be realistic?