What could make morality objective?

[Justintruth]

Oh no! forgot the link:

http://new-savanna.blogspot.com/2016/10 ... ty-in.html

[Veritas Aequitas]

But just as there is no basic generic system for preparing food, so there is no basic generic moral system. There is a basic generic organ called a brain and it is far more susceptible to environmental influences than stomachs or even bowels. Stomachs are organs adapted to digest food: brains (most of brain tissues)are organs adapted to learning and memory.
It's true that stomachs adapt to unusual diets, however that happens to a minute degree compared with the adaptations that happen moment by moment in brains, especially the brains of intelligent animals.

You missed my point.
I stated there is no generic system in human preparing food for consumption, but
there is a a generic human digestive system within all humans.

Surely you are not disputing the Human Digestive System is generic to ALL humans.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_digestive_system
  The human digestive system consists of the gastrointestinal tract plus the accessory organs of digestion (the tongue, salivary glands, pancreas, liver, and gallbladder). Digestion involves the breakdown of food into smaller and smaller components, until they can be absorbed and assimilated into the body. The process of digestion has three stages.

I am comparing the variations in preparing food to the different relative 'moral' systems, e.g. those confined to tribal groups, social groups, religions, which are merely pseudo-morality since their moral elements will differ between them.

BUT amongst all the different types of moral traditions and rules, there is a generic moral system within ALL humans just like the generic human digestive system.
One example is, while there are many different types of relative moral systems that cater to their respective conditions, all of them will not condone premeditated murder, as such this is one evidence of a generic element within a generic moral system.

This is because these relative moral systems intuitively are acting in accordance to the generic moral facts [no killing of humans] within all humans.

As such, regardless of how the relative moral systems operate within their respective conditions, there exist a generic moral system within them which they may not be consciously aware of.

I think I get your general drift now.
At one time I'd hoped to find a human belief that was common to all societies. The belief I chose was not anti-murder but pro-hospitality to strangers. I still think the evidence favours generic pro-hospitality, but am willing to reconsider.

I believe pro-hospitality is more Nurture than Nature. It has to battle to suppress the more inherent nature of tribalism, i.e. us versus them.
But murder is a more fundamental and serious issue of human nature.

As for murder being generically wrong, there is such a lot of evidence of private and judicial murder throughout history that there is no chance murder is generically wrong. In some USA states within a civilised highly developed nation they still do capital punishment!

I believe DNA wise, thus on the basis of NATURE, ALL humans are "programmed" with the basic 'ought-not-to-kill humans' or 'ought-not-to-murder'.
However due to other necessary conditions, this program is not full activated and highly active. This is why there are still killings and murder still going on at present, BUT ...

But you should have noticed the rate and number of permitted killings and murders had been on a decreasing trend since >50 years ago.
More and more governments are abolishing capital punishments. The are more concerns in attempt to prevent wars, especially World-Wars. Even narcissistic Trump had declared not to start wars by the US and evidently he did not start any. [yet?]

Note this thread I raised,

• Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

Therein Steven Pinker has provided solid evidences to support his argument.
Read the thread to get an idea or read his book to get to the details.

The fact that evil, violence, killings and murder of human are on a decreasing trend since the past to the present is because of the gradual unfoldment of the inherent generic moral potential that was programmed within the human brain.

Note the analogy,
DNA wise, ALL humans are "programmed" inherently and intrinsically with the necessary sexual features and sex drive; it is dormant at birth till there about the early teens years, it only takes a small amount of the necessary hormones to trigger and activate the sexual mechanisms and sex drive during puberty.

The above analogy of dormancy and unfoldment is applicable to the "programmed" inherent and intrinsic moral mechanisms and moral drive within ALL humans as embedded in the DNA. The difference is this moral potential and its unfoldment is not that explicit in experiences.

I believe and is optimistic, given the current trend of the exponential and expansion of knowledge and technology, humanity will be able to expedite and accelerate the unfoldment of the inherent generic moral potential within humans.

Peter Holmes, Sculptor, PantFlasher and the likes prefer to be "ostriches" to inherent moral facts and they are complicit in being indifferent to the current level of evil [violence, etc.] as it is or worst condoning it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

At one time I'd hoped to find a human belief that was common to all societies. The belief I chose was not anti-murder but pro-hospitality to strangers. I still think the evidence favours generic pro-hospitality, but am willing to reconsider.

As for murder being generically wrong, there is such a lot of evidence of private and judicial murder throughout history that there is no chance murder is generically wrong.In some USA states within a civilised highly developed nation they still do capital punishment!

Sorry, but here's the objectivist mistake in a nutshell.

The expressions 'generically right' and 'generically wrong' demonstrate a simple confusion. It may be (though it's debateable) that 'the rightness of xenophilia' and 'the wrongness of killing others' are part of (generic in) human nature, so that they manifest universally in moral codes and laws.

But that doesn't mean the moral assertions 'it's right to be kind to strangers' and 'it's wrong to kill others' are facts - true factual assertions. All it means is that humans think it's right to be kind to strangers, and wrong to kill others. That's the only fact involved - and to call it a moral fact is to make a grammatical misattribution.

You are the one who is making the mistake due to bigotry and confirmation bias.

I have explained the analogy re the human digestive system;
Individuals, families, tribes, groups, organization, States, Nations can make all sorts of assertions, views, decisions and judgments related to how to produce food, prepare food and eat food, but the inherent fact is all humans are programmed with an ought-to eat the right kind of food else they will die of starvation.
This is a biological ought-to.

Thus similar to the above analogy,
Moral assertions and moral judgment by individuals, families, tribes, groups, organization, States, Nations, and the likes is one thing.
The above moral assertions and moral judgments are different from the moral facts of 'ought-not-to' and 'ought-to' that are inherent in ALL human beings.

Within a specific moral framework or paradigm,
it is then morally wrong factually, if one's actions are not in alignment with the justified true moral facts which is not dependent on individuals' opinions or beliefs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

.../what is the object that makes moral judgements objective - matters of fact - and therefore true or false?/...

I’d like to propose using empathy and self-disassociation as possible “objects” (in regards to your post).

Though I’m not saying that we’ll be able to define universally applicable ethics, I believe the two play a role in why certain things are considered immoral by a majority of people.

Our ability to empathise suggests that, if we were able to emotionally comprehend everyone’s experience [of x], this would have an impact on our moral judgements.

If we then toyed with the thought that we could be/could have been someone other than ourselves (not uncommon), or that we did not know which of the experiences were “ours”, this would impact on our judgement ever further.

Is it likely then, that the more a society is able to empathise and self-disassociate, the less things it will be willing to morally assess, but that at the same time, on the fewer things it does take a moral stand on, its judgement be both harsher and more homogenous...?
If so, would its ethics seem more objective?

Humbly
Hermit

What you are proposing is moral intuitionalism, i.e. short of objectivity via verification and justifications on the empirical and philosophical basis.

I am not sure of "self-dissociate." Perhaps you mean 'self-interest' can be immoral [..I agree]. But this is a debatable point re morality.

Empathy is intuitively a moral plus and a moral fact.
However we need to verify and justify why empathy is a necessarily a moral fact.

Personally I agree 'empathy' and 'self-interest' are moral elements but to verify and justify they are moral facts objectively is difficult and complex, thus not easy to convince moral anti-realist bigots like Peter Holmes, Sculptor, Pantflasher and their likes.

This is why I am focusing on proving two very obvious moral facts exists, i.e. 'ought-not-to kill humans and 'ought-not-to enslave humans' [nb: chattel].

[Veritas Aequitas]

At one time I'd hoped to find a human belief that was common to all societies. The belief I chose was not anti-murder but pro-hospitality to strangers. I still think the evidence favours generic pro-hospitality, but am willing to reconsider.

As for murder being generically wrong, there is such a lot of evidence of private and judicial murder throughout history that there is no chance murder is generically wrong.In some USA states within a civilised highly developed nation they still do capital punishment!

Do you mean ontological or epistemic objectivity?

Ontological objective morality cannot occur because morality is a characterization of experiencing not an objective property of an object. It is objective ontologically only if you allow subjective properties of objective systems. Then it is objective in that the thing that is experiencing morally is an object, but not that the moral experiencing is objective.

I think epistemically morality is objective as whether there is moral experiencing occurring on the dark side of the moon is determined by fact.

Long time no read Belinda!

Ontology is a very loose term.
If you mean ontology in the sense of Platonic universals or God's Moral Commands, then obviously there is no such real moral objectivity.

• Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies concepts such as existence, being, becoming, and reality.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

If it is 'ontology' in the general sense of existence and being real, then moral facts exist independent of individuals' opinions and beliefs, thus morality in this sense is objective.

Here is an analogy to explain the above;
Experiencing sexual impulses and feelings is not objective, i.e. they are personal experiences and assertions about them are subjective.

But that [basic features and sex drive] which enable the sexual drive and feelings are generic in ALL humans as "programmed" via DNA/RNA, originally as a potential at birth and activated upon puberty.
These facts are objective because they are verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable and meet whatever criteria of objectivity.

The above analogy is applicable to moral facts [moral features and moral drive] inherent within ALL humans in the brain, mind and body which are verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable and meet whatever criteria of objectivity.
Therefore morality is basically objective.

[Peter Holmes]

At one time I'd hoped to find a human belief that was common to all societies. The belief I chose was not anti-murder but pro-hospitality to strangers. I still think the evidence favours generic pro-hospitality, but am willing to reconsider.

As for murder being generically wrong, there is such a lot of evidence of private and judicial murder throughout history that there is no chance murder is generically wrong.In some USA states within a civilised highly developed nation they still do capital punishment!

Sorry, but here's the objectivist mistake in a nutshell.

The expressions 'generically right' and 'generically wrong' demonstrate a simple confusion. It may be (though it's debateable) that 'the rightness of xenophilia' and 'the wrongness of killing others' are part of (generic in) human nature, so that they manifest universally in moral codes and laws.

But that doesn't mean the moral assertions 'it's right to be kind to strangers' and 'it's wrong to kill others' are facts - true factual assertions. All it means is that humans think it's right to be kind to strangers, and wrong to kill others. That's the only fact involved - and to call it a moral fact is to make a grammatical misattribution.

You are the one who is making the mistake due to bigotry and confirmation bias.

I have explained the analogy re the human digestive system;
Individuals, families, tribes, groups, organization, States, Nations can make all sorts of assertions, views, decisions and judgments related to how to produce food, prepare food and eat food, but the inherent fact is all humans are programmed with an ought-to eat the right kind of food else they will die of starvation.
This is a biological ought-to.

Thus similar to the above analogy,
Moral assertions and moral judgment by individuals, families, tribes, groups, organization, States, Nations, and the likes is one thing.
The above moral assertions and moral judgments are different from the moral facts of 'ought-not-to' and 'ought-to' that are inherent in ALL human beings.

Within a specific moral framework or paradigm,
it is then morally wrong factually, if one's actions are not in alignment with the justified true moral facts which is not dependent on individuals' opinions or beliefs.

All wrong. As I've explained.

The fact (if it is a fact) that it's human nature to behave in a certain way is not a moral fact. It's just a fact about human nature. Judgement as to the moral rightness or wrongness - the ought-to-ness or ought-not-to-ness - the propriety or impropriety - of that behaviour is a separate matter.

For example, if ought-to-kill-others were part of human nature, that wouldn't mean ought-to-kill-others is morally right, or not morally wrong.

No facts, including facts about human nature, entail or merely induce moral conclusions. Any such argument begs the question. Examples:

1 We're programmed not to kill others; therefore killing others is morally wrong.
2 It's human nature to welcome strangers; therefore it's morally right to welcome strangers.
3 A human owns herself; therefore it's morally wrong to own her.

In each of these examples, the moral conclusion is assumed in the premise, which begs the question.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Sorry, but here's the objectivist mistake in a nutshell.

The expressions 'generically right' and 'generically wrong' demonstrate a simple confusion. It may be (though it's debateable) that 'the rightness of xenophilia' and 'the wrongness of killing others' are part of (generic in) human nature, so that they manifest universally in moral codes and laws.

But that doesn't mean the moral assertions 'it's right to be kind to strangers' and 'it's wrong to kill others' are facts - true factual assertions. All it means is that humans think it's right to be kind to strangers, and wrong to kill others. That's the only fact involved - and to call it a moral fact is to make a grammatical misattribution.

You are the one who is making the mistake due to bigotry and confirmation bias.

I have explained the analogy re the human digestive system;
Individuals, families, tribes, groups, organization, States, Nations can make all sorts of assertions, views, decisions and judgments related to how to produce food, prepare food and eat food, but the inherent fact is all humans are programmed with an ought-to eat the right kind of food else they will die of starvation.
This is a biological ought-to.

Thus similar to the above analogy,
Moral assertions and moral judgment by individuals, families, tribes, groups, organization, States, Nations, and the likes is one thing.
The above moral assertions and moral judgments are different from the moral facts of 'ought-not-to' and 'ought-to' that are inherent in ALL human beings.

Within a specific moral framework or paradigm,
it is then morally wrong factually, if one's actions are not in alignment with the justified true moral facts which is not dependent on individuals' opinions or beliefs.

All wrong. As I've explained.

The fact (if it is a fact) that it's human nature to behave in a certain way is not a moral fact. It's just a fact about human nature. Judgement as to the moral rightness or wrongness - the ought-to-ness or ought-not-to-ness - the propriety or impropriety - of that behaviour is a separate matter.

For example, if ought-to-kill-others were part of human nature, that wouldn't mean ought-to-kill-others is morally right, or not morally wrong.

No facts, including facts about human nature, entail or merely induce moral conclusions. Any such argument begs the question.

Nah .. you are so trapped by your bigoted ideas.

I have stated my times,
What is fact is specific to the specific FSK.
Moral facts are facts that are specific to a Moral FSK.

• There are Moral Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

As such facts of human nature within a Moral FSK [dealing with ought-not-to and ought-to] induce moral conclusion.

Note this example,
Say, if you deliberately drop a big stone directly on someone's head,
the following facts are induced within the respective FSK;

• 1. the biological facts of damaged anatomy
  2. the psychological fact of pain
  3. the psychological fact of madness on your part,
  4. the fact of physics, gravity, forces, motion, etc.
  5. the eventual criminal, legal fact
  6. the fact of evil deeds
  7. the moral fact of ought-not-to harm humans
  8. etc. facts specific to etc. FSK.

Can you see the point from one event, that facts are specific to the specific FSK and thus moral facts are specific to Moral FSK.

[Peter Holmes]

You are the one who is making the mistake due to bigotry and confirmation bias.

I have explained the analogy re the human digestive system;
Individuals, families, tribes, groups, organization, States, Nations can make all sorts of assertions, views, decisions and judgments related to how to produce food, prepare food and eat food, but the inherent fact is all humans are programmed with an ought-to eat the right kind of food else they will die of starvation.
This is a biological ought-to.

Thus similar to the above analogy,
Moral assertions and moral judgment by individuals, families, tribes, groups, organization, States, Nations, and the likes is one thing.
The above moral assertions and moral judgments are different from the moral facts of 'ought-not-to' and 'ought-to' that are inherent in ALL human beings.

Within a specific moral framework or paradigm,
it is then morally wrong factually, if one's actions are not in alignment with the justified true moral facts which is not dependent on individuals' opinions or beliefs.

All wrong. As I've explained.

The fact (if it is a fact) that it's human nature to behave in a certain way is not a moral fact. It's just a fact about human nature. Judgement as to the moral rightness or wrongness - the ought-to-ness or ought-not-to-ness - the propriety or impropriety - of that behaviour is a separate matter.

For example, if ought-to-kill-others were part of human nature, that wouldn't mean ought-to-kill-others is morally right, or not morally wrong.

No facts, including facts about human nature, entail or merely induce moral conclusions. Any such argument begs the question.

Nah .. you are so trapped by your bigoted ideas.

I have stated my times,
What is fact is specific to the specific FSK.
Moral facts are facts that are specific to a Moral FSK.

• There are Moral Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

As such facts of human nature within a Moral FSK [dealing with ought-not-to and ought-to] induce moral conclusion.

Note this example,
Say, if you deliberately drop a big stone directly on someone's head,
the following facts are induced within the respective FSK;

• 1. the biological facts of damaged anatomy
  2. the psychological fact of pain
  3. the psychological fact of madness on your part,
  4. the fact of physics, gravity, forces, motion, etc.
  5. the eventual criminal, legal fact
  6. the fact of evil deeds
  7. the moral fact of ought-not-to harm humans
  8. etc. facts specific to etc. FSK.

Can you see the point from one event, that facts are specific to the specific FSK and thus moral facts are specific to Moral FSK.

Nope. I've explained the problem with your moral FSK theory: the claim that moral facts exist within the moral FSK begs the question. And you've never addressed that fallacy in your argument.

And I notice you've deleted my examples of question-begging arguments with moral conclusions. Care to explain why they're not fallacious? Or you could just keep on saying the same thing, making the same mistake, to the crack of doom. A Trump disciple, perhaps?

[Veritas Aequitas]

No facts, including facts about human nature, entail or merely induce moral conclusions. Any such argument begs the question. Examples:

1 We're programmed not to kill others; therefore killing others is morally wrong.
2 It's human nature to welcome strangers; therefore it's morally right to welcome strangers.
3 A human owns herself; therefore it's morally wrong to own her.

In each of these examples, the moral conclusion is assumed in the premise, which begs the question.

You are so desperate that you are coming up with irrational logical conclusions.

Note,
A Moral FSK establish compliances with various ought-not-to and ought-to.
Non-compliance with any of the ought within a Moral FSK is morally wrong .
One of the ought-not-to with the Moral FSK is the ought-not-to kill humans.
Killing humans is a non-compliance within the Moral FSK.
Therefore killing humans is morally wrong within the Moral FSK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

All wrong. As I've explained.

The fact (if it is a fact) that it's human nature to behave in a certain way is not a moral fact. It's just a fact about human nature. Judgement as to the moral rightness or wrongness - the ought-to-ness or ought-not-to-ness - the propriety or impropriety - of that behaviour is a separate matter.

For example, if ought-to-kill-others were part of human nature, that wouldn't mean ought-to-kill-others is morally right, or not morally wrong.

No facts, including facts about human nature, entail or merely induce moral conclusions. Any such argument begs the question.

Nah .. you are so trapped by your bigoted ideas.

I have stated my times,
What is fact is specific to the specific FSK.
Moral facts are facts that are specific to a Moral FSK.

• There are Moral Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

As such facts of human nature within a Moral FSK [dealing with ought-not-to and ought-to] induce moral conclusion.

Note this example,
Say, if you deliberately drop a big stone directly on someone's head,
the following facts are induced within the respective FSK;

• 1. the biological facts of damaged anatomy
  2. the psychological fact of pain
  3. the psychological fact of madness on your part,
  4. the fact of physics, gravity, forces, motion, etc.
  5. the eventual criminal, legal fact
  6. the fact of evil deeds
  7. the moral fact of ought-not-to harm humans
  8. etc. facts specific to etc. FSK.

Can you see the point from one event, that facts are specific to the specific FSK and thus moral facts are specific to Moral FSK.

Nope. I've explained the problem with your moral FSK theory: the claim that moral facts exist within the moral FSK begs the question. And you've never addressed that fallacy in your argument.

Where?

And I notice you've deleted my examples of question-begging arguments with moral conclusions. Care to explain why they're not fallacious? Or you could just keep on saying the same thing, making the same mistake, to the crack of doom. A Trump disciple, perhaps?

Don't be too hasty in blaming others when its is your doing.
I picked your post and quoted it before you edited and added the last part.
Note my counter to that.

Trump disciple??
That is a cheap defense to the argument.
That you believe Trump is bad or evil is because you had been brainwashed and zombied by the bias media driven by tribalism and Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Objectively, I believe Trump, re his job appraisal taking into account the positives and negative, did a great job [net positive] relative to his terms of employment as a Government servant and employee.
Where is your sense of objectivity and rationality in relation to Trump and his contractual terms of employment?

[Belinda]

You missed my point.
I stated there is no generic system in human preparing food for consumption, but
there is a a generic human digestive system within all humans.

Surely you are not disputing the Human Digestive System is generic to ALL humans.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_digestive_system
  The human digestive system consists of the gastrointestinal tract plus the accessory organs of digestion (the tongue, salivary glands, pancreas, liver, and gallbladder). Digestion involves the breakdown of food into smaller and smaller components, until they can be absorbed and assimilated into the body. The process of digestion has three stages.

I am comparing the variations in preparing food to the different relative 'moral' systems, e.g. those confined to tribal groups, social groups, religions, which are merely pseudo-morality since their moral elements will differ between them.

BUT amongst all the different types of moral traditions and rules, there is a generic moral system within ALL humans just like the generic human digestive system.
One example is, while there are many different types of relative moral systems that cater to their respective conditions, all of them will not condone premeditated murder, as such this is one evidence of a generic element within a generic moral system.

This is because these relative moral systems intuitively are acting in accordance to the generic moral facts [no killing of humans] within all humans.

As such, regardless of how the relative moral systems operate within their respective conditions, there exist a generic moral system within them which they may not be consciously aware of.

I think I get your general drift now.
At one time I'd hoped to find a human belief that was common to all societies. The belief I chose was not anti-murder but pro-hospitality to strangers. I still think the evidence favours generic pro-hospitality, but am willing to reconsider.

I believe pro-hospitality is more Nurture than Nature. It has to battle to suppress the more inherent nature of tribalism, i.e. us versus them.
But murder is a more fundamental and serious issue of human nature.

As for murder being generically wrong, there is such a lot of evidence of private and judicial murder throughout history that there is no chance murder is generically wrong. In some USA states within a civilised highly developed nation they still do capital punishment!

I believe DNA wise, thus on the basis of NATURE, ALL humans are "programmed" with the basic 'ought-not-to-kill humans' or 'ought-not-to-murder'.
However due to other necessary conditions, this program is not full activated and highly active. This is why there are still killings and murder still going on at present, BUT ...

But you should have noticed the rate and number of permitted killings and murders had been on a decreasing trend since >50 years ago.
More and more governments are abolishing capital punishments. The are more concerns in attempt to prevent wars, especially World-Wars. Even narcissistic Trump had declared not to start wars by the US and evidently he did not start any. [yet?]

Note this thread I raised,

• Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

Therein Steven Pinker has provided solid evidences to support his argument.
Read the thread to get an idea or read his book to get to the details.

The fact that evil, violence, killings and murder of human are on a decreasing trend since the past to the present is because of the gradual unfoldment of the inherent generic moral potential that was programmed within the human brain.

Note the analogy,
DNA wise, ALL humans are "programmed" inherently and intrinsically with the necessary sexual features and sex drive; it is dormant at birth till there about the early teens years, it only takes a small amount of the necessary hormones to trigger and activate the sexual mechanisms and sex drive during puberty.

The above analogy of dormancy and unfoldment is applicable to the "programmed" inherent and intrinsic moral mechanisms and moral drive within ALL humans as embedded in the DNA. The difference is this moral potential and its unfoldment is not that explicit in experiences.

I believe and is optimistic, given the current trend of the exponential and expansion of knowledge and technology, humanity will be able to expedite and accelerate the unfoldment of the inherent generic moral potential within humans.

Peter Holmes, Sculptor, PantFlasher and the likes prefer to be "ostriches" to inherent moral facts and they are complicit in being indifferent to the current level of evil [violence, etc.] as it is or worst condoning it.

May I express your thesis as follows? Humans as social animals have specific inherent potentials. Among these inherent potentials is not killing other humans, nurturing their young for ten+ years, and taking care of needy humans from outwith the tribe.

These potentials will not be actualised until and unless the individual has been socialised into particular traditions or codes of conduct.

[Peter Holmes]

Nah .. you are so trapped by your bigoted ideas.

I have stated my times,
What is fact is specific to the specific FSK.
Moral facts are facts that are specific to a Moral FSK.

• There are Moral Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

As such facts of human nature within a Moral FSK [dealing with ought-not-to and ought-to] induce moral conclusion.

Note this example,
Say, if you deliberately drop a big stone directly on someone's head,
the following facts are induced within the respective FSK;

• 1. the biological facts of damaged anatomy
  2. the psychological fact of pain
  3. the psychological fact of madness on your part,
  4. the fact of physics, gravity, forces, motion, etc.
  5. the eventual criminal, legal fact
  6. the fact of evil deeds
  7. the moral fact of ought-not-to harm humans
  8. etc. facts specific to etc. FSK.

Can you see the point from one event, that facts are specific to the specific FSK and thus moral facts are specific to Moral FSK.

Nope. I've explained the problem with your moral FSK theory: the claim that moral facts exist within the moral FSK begs the question. And you've never addressed that fallacy in your argument.

Where?

And I notice you've deleted my examples of question-begging arguments with moral conclusions. Care to explain why they're not fallacious? Or you could just keep on saying the same thing, making the same mistake, to the crack of doom. A Trump disciple, perhaps?

Don't be too hasty in blaming others when its is your doing.
I picked your post and quoted it before you edited and added the last part.
Note my counter to that.

Trump disciple??
That is a cheap defense to the argument.
That you believe Trump is bad or evil is because you had been brainwashed and zombied by the bias media driven by tribalism and Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Objectively, I believe Trump, re his job appraisal taking into account the positives and negative, did a great job [net positive] relative to his terms of employment as a Government servant and employee.
Where is your sense of objectivity and rationality in relation to Trump and his contractual terms of employment?

1 Your claim that there are moral facts 'specific' to the moral FSK assumes there is a moral FSK within which there are moral facts, which begs the question. Waste of time.

2 As for Trump, that you support such an utterly morally disgusting man and his policies is a QED against moral objectivism, as far as I'm concerned.

[henry quirk]

there are no moral facts but ORANGE MAN is utterly morally disgusting

[Immanuel Can]

there are no moral facts but ORANGE MAN is utterly morally disgusting

Yeah, that's it.

Moral subjectivists can't even stay consistent, their view is so impossible; they have to tell you you're morally "objectively wrong" to believe in moral objectivism.

That's an astronomical level of unawareness.

[Peter Holmes]

1 There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions.

2 In my opinion, Trump and his policies are utterly morally disgusting.

There's no inconsistency between those two assertions. Obviously.