But PH's et.-al.'s what is fact is grounded on an illusion.
Therefore PH do not have grounds to refute 'morality is objective'.
PH's traditional version of 'what is fact' postulate what is fact is a feature of reality, that is the case, a state of affairs and just-is-so that is absolutely independent of the individual's opinion, beliefs and judgments. [F1]
The never version of 'what is fact' proposed 'deflationary fact' with 'deflationary truth making'.
Here is from AI [wR];
As such from the above, the traditional 'what is fact' [F1] as insisted upon by PH is unnecessary, meaningless and illusory.• Deflationary Facts: This is a recent idea that argues against the need for a separate entity (like a fact) to make a proposition true. The proposition itself, accurately reflecting the world, is sufficient. In simpler terms, there's no "fact behind the fact," the statement itself is the fact.
• Deflationary Truthmaking: This concept focuses on the relationship between language and the world that makes propositions true. It downplays the need for a complex theory of truth-makers (entities that make propositions true). Instead, it might explain truth by analyzing how sentences or propositions connect to the world, similar to how deflationary facts work.
Here's an analogy:
• Imagine a statement like "The cat is on the mat."
o Deflationary Facts: This view says there's no separate "fact" that makes this statement true. The statement itself, accurately reflecting the cat's position, is sufficient.
o Deflationary Truthmaking: This focuses on the connection between the statement and the world. It might explain that the statement is true because the world actually has a cat on a mat, without needing a separate "fact" to mediate that connection.
Key Points:
• Both deflationary facts and deflationary truthmaking aim to simplify how we understand truth.
• Deflationary facts focus on the proposition itself, while deflationary truthmaking focuses on the relationship between language and the world.
Deflationary facts [realists] still assume there is an independent objective cat and mat out there.
However, I argue the above independent 'cat' and 'mat' and 'sitting on' is meaningless unless it is conditioned within a collection of human-based Framework and Systems, e.g.
-common sense FS
-linguistic FS
-science-biology
-cognitive FS
-Emergence and realization of reality FS
-whatever necessary FS.
the cumulative of the above is a human-based FSERC.
Because it is human-based, deductively it follows, whatever the resultant [reality, cognition, knowledge or description] it CANNOT be absolutely independent of the human conditions. Thus realism[p] in this case is not tenable.
What is tenable and realistic is an antirealist [Kantian] fact [if we are still using the term fact].
What is most tenable is an antirealist [Kantian] deflationary fact.
From here, I have argued, there are objective moral facts [deflationary] therefore morality is objective in that respect.
Note this is for discussion.
Discuss??
Views??