What could make morality objective?

[Immanuel Can]

My computer is down, if I am not mistaken I downloaded the book if not I have surveyed the "contents" and noted the various articles by different authors.

You begin by saying, essentially, "I have no chance of knowing anything about this," and then you go on to talk about it. Amusing.

Obviously you have read and assign the wrong poster to me.
Evidence, which post?

See the little blue arrow beside the second "VA" at the top of this box?

Click it, and it will take you back to your own words, which I was quoting exactly.

[Immanuel Can]

Thermometers exist and are useful.

Right. So does subjective knowledge. It exists, and it is also useful...because it generally approximates objective reality, even when tit may not calibrate to it with absolute precision. That's the point.

This being true, one can't just say, "Well, this isn't absolutely precise, so it's of no value and is not to be trusted." (This is the great Postmodern error about truth...to suppose that if our knowledge is subjective, and hence only relatively accurate, we can happily throw that baby out with the bathwater, and just say, "All knowledge is a fake.")

No, a thermometer calibrated to whole degrees is still telling us things, and giving us knowledge of temperature, even if it can't give us anything more precise than whole degrees. And subjective knowledge is still telling us important and true things, even if it isn't telling us everything, or always with perfect exactness.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The moral goals are derived from empirical facts and philosophical reasoning as moral facts.
Note the wiki link re 'What is fact'.
There is no issue with moral fact as long as it is explained sufficiently as related to the moral framework.

Not so. You're mistaking 'derivation' for 'deduction'.

There's no deductive entailment from 'people must breathe or they die' to 'people ought to breathe'.

If there were an entailment, as you know, to accept the premise and reject the conclusion would be irrational. But here there's no contradiction in doing so: P 'people must breathe or they die' C 'people ought not to breathe' - is not a contradiction - so there's no deductive entailment in the original.

Of course, we can try to justify the judgement 'people ought to breathe' by citing the fact that if they don't breathe they'll die. But then, why ought people not to die? Is that supposed to be a fact? No- it's just another judgement.

The lack of deductive entailment between a factual assertion and a moral one is what makes the expression 'moral fact' incoherent.

The below is a deduction

Note here is the deduction;

• P1 ALL humans are programmed to survive at all costs at least till the inevitable.
  P2 If all humans do not breathe they will not survive and will die prematurely.
  C1 Therefore all living human ought to breathe at least till the inevitable.

If you cannot see the deduction, here is another perspective;

• P1 ALL humans are programmed to survive at all costs at least till the inevitable.
  P2 To survive at at costs all living humans must breathe, else self-evidently, they will die.
  C1 Therefore to survive at all costs, all living human ought to breathe at least till the inevitable.

There is entailment, C1 follow from P2 from P1.

The above premises are deliberated within a Moral Framework, thus the conclusion is a moral fact.

Note within the Legal Framework, persecutors and the defense teams in many cases rely upon scientific facts and other facts to facilitate the jury's to reach a conclusion of a legal fact. What so incoherent about that?

What is critical here is there must be Framework of Knowledge to co-ordinate the various facts to arrive a conclusive fact.
In may case, I have relied upon a Framework of Morality and Ethics to co-ordinate the relevant facts [empirical or otherwise] to arrive a deductive moral fact with reliance on philosophical reasoning.

As I had stated you are SO stuck in rut of narrow and shallow ideas such as Philosophical Realism and its constipated 'objectivity' which is not fundamentally realistic at all. This is why you are unable to realize the truth of reality.

I understand Hume's contention, i.e one cannot simply make moral evaluations directly out of empirical facts based on reason alone.
In my case, I have relied upon human nature [a priori] to ground my argument, i.e. in P1.
Note I have deeper ground of human nature but P1 is sufficient.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You begin by saying, essentially, "I have no chance of knowing anything about this," and then you go on to talk about it. Amusing.

Obviously you have read and assign the wrong poster to me.
Evidence, which post?

See the little blue arrow beside the second "VA" at the top of this box?

Click it, and it will take you back to your own words, which I was quoting exactly.

Still cannot see it here;

Where in here??
viewtopic.php?p=454054#p454054

I stated my computer is down so I have no access to the book I have downloaded if I had downloaded fully or merely partially the contents only plus reviews by various critiques.

I did not state "I have no chance of knowing anything about this,"
Why not, I can confirm it when I have recovered the data from the harddisk which will take some time.

I have found the link to download the book.
I believe I have surveyed the contents, read the intro and a few articles and found nothing special re this compilation [see below] from what is all over the internet on the issue.

• THE BLACKWELL COMPANION TO NATURAL THEOLOGY
  Edited by William Lane Craig
  and
  J. P. Moreland
  
  Contents:
  
  The project of natural theology 1
  Charles Taliaferro
  2 The Leibnizian cosmological argument 24
  Alexander R. Pruss
  3 The kalam cosmological argument 101
  William Lane Craig and James D. Sinclair
  4 The teleological argument: an exploration of the fi ne-tuning of
  the universe 202
  Robin Collins
  5 The argument from consciousness 282
  J. P. Moreland
  6 The argument from reason 344
  Victor Reppert
  7 The moral argument 391
  Mark D. Linville
  8 The argument from evil 449
  Stewart Goetz
  9 The argument from religious experience 498
  Kai-Man Kwan
  10 The ontological argument 553
  Robert E. Maydole
  11 The argument from miracles: a cumulative case for the resurrection
  of Jesus of Nazareth 593
  Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thermometers exist and are useful.

Right. So does subjective knowledge. It exists, and it is also useful...because it generally approximates objective reality, even when tit may not calibrate to it with absolute precision. That's the point.

This being true, one can't just say, "Well, this isn't absolutely precise, so it's of no value and is not to be trusted." (This is the great Postmodern error about truth...to suppose that if our knowledge is subjective, and hence only relatively accurate, we can happily throw that baby out with the bathwater, and just say, "All knowledge is a fake.")

No, a thermometer calibrated to whole degrees is still telling us things, and giving us knowledge of temperature, even if it can't give us anything more precise than whole degrees. And subjective knowledge is still telling us important and true things, even if it isn't telling us everything, or always with perfect exactness.

'Absolute objective reality is claimed by Philosophical Realism which not realistic and theism which is based on blind faith.

Absolute Perfect exactness is claimed by the Platonists and theists where in both case, perfect exactness in an impossibility in reality.

Demonstrate [philosophical argument or otherwise] to me the existence of absolute objective reality and perfect exactness in reality?

[Peter Holmes]

The moral goals are derived from empirical facts and philosophical reasoning as moral facts.
Note the wiki link re 'What is fact'.
There is no issue with moral fact as long as it is explained sufficiently as related to the moral framework.

Not so. You're mistaking 'derivation' for 'deduction'.

There's no deductive entailment from 'people must breathe or they die' to 'people ought to breathe'.

If there were an entailment, as you know, to accept the premise and reject the conclusion would be irrational. But here there's no contradiction in doing so: P 'people must breathe or they die' C 'people ought not to breathe' - is not a contradiction - so there's no deductive entailment in the original.

Of course, we can try to justify the judgement 'people ought to breathe' by citing the fact that if they don't breathe they'll die. But then, why ought people not to die? Is that supposed to be a fact? No- it's just another judgement.

The lack of deductive entailment between a factual assertion and a moral one is what makes the expression 'moral fact' incoherent.

The below is a deduction

Note here is the deduction;

• P1 ALL humans are programmed to survive at all costs at least till the inevitable.
  P2 If all humans do not breathe they will not survive and will die prematurely.
  C1 Therefore all living human ought to breathe at least till the inevitable.

If you cannot see the deduction, here is another perspective;

• P1 ALL humans are programmed to survive at all costs at least till the inevitable.
  P2 To survive at at costs all living humans must breathe, else self-evidently, they will die.
  C1 Therefore to survive at all costs, all living human ought to breathe at least till the inevitable.

There is entailment, C1 follow from P2 from P1.

The above premises are deliberated within a Moral Framework, thus the conclusion is a moral fact.

Note within the Legal Framework, persecutors and the defense teams in many cases rely upon scientific facts and other facts to facilitate the jury's to reach a conclusion of a legal fact. What so incoherent about that?

What is critical here is there must be Framework of Knowledge to co-ordinate the various facts to arrive a conclusive fact.
In may case, I have relied upon a Framework of Morality and Ethics to co-ordinate the relevant facts [empirical or otherwise] to arrive a deductive moral fact with reliance on philosophical reasoning.

As I had stated you are SO stuck in rut of narrow and shallow ideas such as Philosophical Realism and its constipated 'objectivity' which is not fundamentally realistic at all. This is why you are unable to realize the truth of reality.

I understand Hume's contention, i.e one cannot simply make moral evaluations directly out of empirical facts based on reason alone.
In my case, I have relied upon human nature [a priori] to ground my argument, i.e. in P1.
Note I have deeper ground of human nature but P1 is sufficient.

Why must or should humans do what we're programmed to do?

Is it a fact that we must or should do what we're programmed to do? Or is it a matter of opinion?

If we don't do what we're programmed to do, is that a logical contradiction?

Trains run on rails. Does that mean they should or ought to run on rails?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Not so. You're mistaking 'derivation' for 'deduction'.

There's no deductive entailment from 'people must breathe or they die' to 'people ought to breathe'.

If there were an entailment, as you know, to accept the premise and reject the conclusion would be irrational. But here there's no contradiction in doing so: P 'people must breathe or they die' C 'people ought not to breathe' - is not a contradiction - so there's no deductive entailment in the original.

Of course, we can try to justify the judgement 'people ought to breathe' by citing the fact that if they don't breathe they'll die. But then, why ought people not to die? Is that supposed to be a fact? No- it's just another judgement.

The lack of deductive entailment between a factual assertion and a moral one is what makes the expression 'moral fact' incoherent.

The below is a deduction

Note here is the deduction;

• P1 ALL humans are programmed to survive at all costs at least till the inevitable.
  P2 If all humans do not breathe they will not survive and will die prematurely.
  C1 Therefore all living human ought to breathe at least till the inevitable.

If you cannot see the deduction, here is another perspective;

• P1 ALL humans are programmed to survive at all costs at least till the inevitable.
  P2 To survive at at costs all living humans must breathe, else self-evidently, they will die.
  C1 Therefore to survive at all costs, all living human ought to breathe at least till the inevitable.

There is entailment, C1 follow from P2 from P1.

The above premises are deliberated within a Moral Framework, thus the conclusion is a moral fact.

Note within the Legal Framework, persecutors and the defense teams in many cases rely upon scientific facts and other facts to facilitate the jury's to reach a conclusion of a legal fact. What so incoherent about that?

What is critical here is there must be Framework of Knowledge to co-ordinate the various facts to arrive a conclusive fact.
In may case, I have relied upon a Framework of Morality and Ethics to co-ordinate the relevant facts [empirical or otherwise] to arrive a deductive moral fact with reliance on philosophical reasoning.

As I had stated you are SO stuck in rut of narrow and shallow ideas such as Philosophical Realism and its constipated 'objectivity' which is not fundamentally realistic at all. This is why you are unable to realize the truth of reality.

I understand Hume's contention, i.e one cannot simply make moral evaluations directly out of empirical facts based on reason alone.
In my case, I have relied upon human nature [a priori] to ground my argument, i.e. in P1.
Note I have deeper ground of human nature but P1 is sufficient.

Why must or should humans do what we're programmed to do?

Is it a fact that we must or should do what we're programmed to do? Or is it a matter of opinion?

If we don't do what we're programmed to do, is that a logical contradiction?

Animals [non-humans] will spontaneously act in accordance to what they are programmed to do.

At the fundamental level, humans are programmed to act like animals but in addition humans are also programmed with self-awareness and free will to act as their discretion.
In addition, humans are also programmed with a faculty of morality [to be argued for].

Breathing [and other impulses] are fundamental which we have noted cannot be compromised, else there is pain and potential death.
However, such a fundamental impulse could be compromised with self-awareness and freewill.
At the same time, humans are also programmed with a faculty of morality.
It is from this faculty of morality that we are driven to establish a Framework of Morality and Ethics to manage and module humans actions morally.

From this Framework of Morality and Ethics, it is imperative that we adopt moral objectives [goals] as GUIDE which establish why we must do/act optimally on what we are programmed to do.

[Peter Holmes]

The below is a deduction

Note here is the deduction;

• P1 ALL humans are programmed to survive at all costs at least till the inevitable.
  P2 If all humans do not breathe they will not survive and will die prematurely.
  C1 Therefore all living human ought to breathe at least till the inevitable.

If you cannot see the deduction, here is another perspective;

• P1 ALL humans are programmed to survive at all costs at least till the inevitable.
  P2 To survive at at costs all living humans must breathe, else self-evidently, they will die.
  C1 Therefore to survive at all costs, all living human ought to breathe at least till the inevitable.

There is entailment, C1 follow from P2 from P1.

The above premises are deliberated within a Moral Framework, thus the conclusion is a moral fact.

Note within the Legal Framework, persecutors and the defense teams in many cases rely upon scientific facts and other facts to facilitate the jury's to reach a conclusion of a legal fact. What so incoherent about that?

What is critical here is there must be Framework of Knowledge to co-ordinate the various facts to arrive a conclusive fact.
In may case, I have relied upon a Framework of Morality and Ethics to co-ordinate the relevant facts [empirical or otherwise] to arrive a deductive moral fact with reliance on philosophical reasoning.

As I had stated you are SO stuck in rut of narrow and shallow ideas such as Philosophical Realism and its constipated 'objectivity' which is not fundamentally realistic at all. This is why you are unable to realize the truth of reality.

I understand Hume's contention, i.e one cannot simply make moral evaluations directly out of empirical facts based on reason alone.
In my case, I have relied upon human nature [a priori] to ground my argument, i.e. in P1.
Note I have deeper ground of human nature but P1 is sufficient.

Why must or should humans do what we're programmed to do?

Is it a fact that we must or should do what we're programmed to do? Or is it a matter of opinion?

If we don't do what we're programmed to do, is that a logical contradiction?

Animals [non-humans] will spontaneously act in accordance to what they are programmed to do.

At the fundamental level, humans are programmed to act like animals but in addition humans are also programmed with self-awareness and free will to act as their discretion.
In addition, humans are also programmed with a faculty of morality [to be argued for].

Breathing [and other impulses] are fundamental which we have noted cannot be compromised, else there is pain and potential death.
However, such a fundamental impulse could be compromised with self-awareness and freewill.
At the same time, humans are also programmed with a faculty of morality.
It is from this faculty of morality that we are driven to establish a Framework of Morality and Ethics to manage and module humans actions morally.

From this Framework of Morality and Ethics, it is imperative that we adopt moral objectives [goals] as GUIDE which establish why we must do/act optimally on what we are programmed to do.

You claim 'humans are programmed with a faculty of morality'. Best of luck providing evidence to support that claim.

But you're missing the point. If X is programmed to do Y, does that mean X should or ought to do Y? After all, if X must do Y - if that's what 'is programmed to' means - then should or ought to are irrelevant, because no other course is possible.

To say 'X should or ought to do Y' is to express an opinion, not to make a factual claim with a truth-value.

To repeat: trains run on rails - but does that mean they should or ought to run on rails?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why must or should humans do what we're programmed to do?
Is it a fact that we must or should do what we're programmed to do? Or is it a matter of opinion?
If we don't do what we're programmed to do, is that a logical contradiction?

Animals [non-humans] will spontaneously act in accordance to what they are programmed to do.

At the fundamental level, humans are programmed to act like animals but in addition humans are also programmed with self-awareness and free will to act as their discretion.
In addition, humans are also programmed with a faculty of morality [to be argued for].

Breathing [and other impulses] are fundamental which we have noted cannot be compromised, else there is pain and potential death.
However, such a fundamental impulse could be compromised with self-awareness and freewill.
At the same time, humans are also programmed with a faculty of morality.
It is from this faculty of morality that we are driven to establish a Framework of Morality and Ethics to manage and module humans actions morally.

From this Framework of Morality and Ethics, it is imperative that we adopt moral objectives [goals] as GUIDE which establish why we must do/act optimally on what we are programmed to do.

You claim 'humans are programmed with a faculty of morality'. Best of luck providing evidence to support that claim.

But you're missing the point. If X is programmed to do Y, does that mean X should or ought to do Y? After all, if X must do Y - if that's what 'is programmed to' means - then should or ought to are irrelevant, because no other course is possible.

To say 'X should or ought to do Y' is to express an opinion, not to make a factual claim with a truth-value.

To repeat: trains run on rails - but does that mean they should or ought to run on rails?

You missed my critical points?
Trains are not programmed with a self-consciousness, self-awareness and freewill, ONLY humans are programmed with those elements.

Peter Holmes: If X is programmed to do Y, does that mean X should or ought to do Y?
Yes, because X is human who had the ability of discretion not to do Y.
If X do Y [evil], there is a potential harm to himself, others and the humanity and the human species.

Note you have a choice,
Either,
All humans ought to breathe
or
All humans ought not to breathe
as the universal rule.

If you study Hume seriously and thoroughly, you will find clues Hume was alluding there is a moral faculty within human nature as observed within humans.
There are loads of other empirical evidences to support the hypothesis, there is an inherent moral faculty within all humans where it is evolving, reasonably active in some and dormant in the majority.

[Belinda]

We can't ever study objective reality because all our perceptions and interpretations are filtered through subjective experience.

That's like saying, "We can't ever use a thermometer, because it's not precisely calibrated below half a degree of accuracy...so we don't ever really know for sure what temperature it is, and that makes all thermometer's useless."

Not even close to a justified argument. And the truth is that our subjective impressions are pretty good...usually fairly accurate, though by no means undefeatable, and very serviceable for most of our purposes.

But you've got to ask yourself a deeper question: if we say, "All we have is a subjective impression," then the right question is, "A subjective impression of what?"

Of what? Of what thing is our "subjective impression" an impression?

And, of course, the answer is "objective reality," which is really real. In fact, it's only with reference to those areas in which we DO know objective reality that we are able to judge whether or not our subjective impressions are reliable or unreliable.

1. How do you know what you know?

a) Your knowledge comes from experience including secondary knowledge from others and from your general culture of belief.

b) Your knowledge is born with you like your skin is born with you.

2.

And, of course, the answer is "objective reality," which is really real. In fact, it's only with reference to those areas in which we DO know objective reality that we are able to judge whether or not our subjective impressions are reliable or unreliable.

It has not always been believed the sun necessarily will be warmer in summer time bringing fertility and food. Which parts of objective reality do you believe?
Most people believe the 'laws' of science or nature. Do these laws amount to objective reality?

[Peter Holmes]

Animals [non-humans] will spontaneously act in accordance to what they are programmed to do.

At the fundamental level, humans are programmed to act like animals but in addition humans are also programmed with self-awareness and free will to act as their discretion.
In addition, humans are also programmed with a faculty of morality [to be argued for].

Breathing [and other impulses] are fundamental which we have noted cannot be compromised, else there is pain and potential death.
However, such a fundamental impulse could be compromised with self-awareness and freewill.
At the same time, humans are also programmed with a faculty of morality.
It is from this faculty of morality that we are driven to establish a Framework of Morality and Ethics to manage and module humans actions morally.

From this Framework of Morality and Ethics, it is imperative that we adopt moral objectives [goals] as GUIDE which establish why we must do/act optimally on what we are programmed to do.

You claim 'humans are programmed with a faculty of morality'. Best of luck providing evidence to support that claim.

But you're missing the point. If X is programmed to do Y, does that mean X should or ought to do Y? After all, if X must do Y - if that's what 'is programmed to' means - then should or ought to are irrelevant, because no other course is possible.

To say 'X should or ought to do Y' is to express an opinion, not to make a factual claim with a truth-value.

To repeat: trains run on rails - but does that mean they should or ought to run on rails?

You missed my critical points?
Trains are not programmed with a self-consciousness, self-awareness and freewill, ONLY humans are programmed with those elements.

Peter Holmes: If X is programmed to do Y, does that mean X should or ought to do Y?
Yes, because X is human who had the ability of discretion not to do Y.
If X do Y [evil], there is a potential harm to himself, others and the humanity and the human species.

Note you have a choice,
Either,
All humans ought to breathe
or
All humans ought not to breathe
as the universal rule.

If you study Hume seriously and thoroughly, you will find clues Hume was alluding there is a moral faculty within human nature as observed within humans.
There are loads of other empirical evidences to support the hypothesis, there is an inherent moral faculty within all humans where it is evolving, reasonably active in some and dormant in the majority.

Still missing the point.

If X is programmed to do Y, but can choose not to, why should X do Y?

If you answer 'if Y is evil, then Y could harm X, others and the species' - so what? Why shouldn't X harm herself, others and the species?

What I'm trying to get you to understand is that, at the bottom of our moral arguments, explanations and justifications, there is always a moral judgement, belief or opinion - and never a fact. You want there to be facts - true factual assertions - and sound arguments - that somehow magically turn our moral judgements into facts. And that's impossible.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You claim 'humans are programmed with a faculty of morality'. Best of luck providing evidence to support that claim.

But you're missing the point. If X is programmed to do Y, does that mean X should or ought to do Y? After all, if X must do Y - if that's what 'is programmed to' means - then should or ought to are irrelevant, because no other course is possible.

To say 'X should or ought to do Y' is to express an opinion, not to make a factual claim with a truth-value.

To repeat: trains run on rails - but does that mean they should or ought to run on rails?

You missed my critical points?
Trains are not programmed with a self-consciousness, self-awareness and freewill, ONLY humans are programmed with those elements.

Peter Holmes: If X is programmed to do Y, does that mean X should or ought to do Y?
Yes, because X is human who had the ability of discretion not to do Y.
If X do Y [evil], there is a potential harm to himself, others and the humanity and the human species.

Note you have a choice,
Either,
All humans ought to breathe
or
All humans ought not to breathe
as the universal rule.

If you study Hume seriously and thoroughly, you will find clues Hume was alluding there is a moral faculty within human nature as observed within humans.
There are loads of other empirical evidences to support the hypothesis, there is an inherent moral faculty within all humans where it is evolving, reasonably active in some and dormant in the majority.

Still missing the point.

If X is programmed to do Y, but can choose not to, why should X do Y?

If you answer 'if Y is evil, then Y could harm X, others and the species' - so what? Why shouldn't X harm herself, others and the species?

What I'm trying to get you to understand is that, at the bottom of our moral arguments, explanations and justifications, there is always a moral judgement, belief or opinion - and never a fact. You want there to be facts - true factual assertions - and sound arguments - that somehow magically turn our moral judgements into facts. And that's impossible.

Peter Holmes: You want there to be facts - true factual assertions - and sound arguments - that somehow magically turn our moral judgements into facts. And that's impossible.

You are blind to your problem that you insist there is only one kind of facts, i.e. the Philosophical Realism's fact.
I have argued your ground on Philosophical Realism is unrealistic and untenable which contradict the basis the 'You are part and parcel of Reality - all there is" - which you agreed to.

What I have done is to rationally deduce from empirical facts to moral facts within a Framework of Morality, like;
how the Scientific Framework generate scientific facts;
how the Legal Framework generate legal facts;
how other Framework of Knowledge arrive at their own related facts;

As I had stated if you are constipated with Philosophical Realism's sh:t, you will NOT understand what I am proposing re moral facts.

Btw, all over the world, almost all humans [except the primitives] are subject to Judiciary and legal facts and legal objectives, e.g.
The laws re: "No Human ought to murder another human", else they will face punishment of death or otherwise.

What I propose is not political, legislature and judiciary which rely on enforcement but in accordance to the natural and spontaneous moral propensity within all humans.

In addition, what I am proposing re "moral fact" is already done in a crude manner at the present, whilst it is not systematic and effectively organized.

[Belinda]

We can't ever study objective reality because all our perceptions and interpretations are filtered through subjective experience.

That's like saying, "We can't ever use a thermometer, because it's not precisely calibrated below half a degree of accuracy...so we don't ever really know for sure what temperature it is, and that makes all thermometer's useless."

Not even close to a justified argument. And the truth is that our subjective impressions are pretty good...usually fairly accurate, though by no means undefeatable, and very serviceable for most of our purposes.

But you've got to ask yourself a deeper question: if we say, "All we have is a subjective impression," then the right question is, "A subjective impression of what?"

Of what? Of what thing is our "subjective impression" an impression?

And, of course, the answer is "objective reality," which is really real. In fact, it's only with reference to those areas in which we DO know objective reality that we are able to judge whether or not our subjective impressions are reliable or unreliable.

1. How do you know what you know?

a) Your knowledge comes from experience including secondary knowledge from others and from your general culture of belief.

b) Your knowledge is born with you like your skin is born with you.

2.

And, of course, the answer is "objective reality," which is really real. In fact, it's only with reference to those areas in which we DO know objective reality that we are able to judge whether or not our subjective impressions are reliable or unreliable.

It has not always been believed the sun necessarily will be warmer in summer time bringing fertility and food. Which parts of objective reality do you believe?
Most people believe the 'laws' of science or nature. Do these laws amount to objective reality?

[Belinda]

Animals [non-humans] will spontaneously act in accordance to what they are programmed to do.

At the fundamental level, humans are programmed to act like animals but in addition humans are also programmed with self-awareness and free will to act as their discretion.
In addition, humans are also programmed with a faculty of morality [to be argued for].

Breathing [and other impulses] are fundamental which we have noted cannot be compromised, else there is pain and potential death.
However, such a fundamental impulse could be compromised with self-awareness and freewill.
At the same time, humans are also programmed with a faculty of morality.
It is from this faculty of morality that we are driven to establish a Framework of Morality and Ethics to manage and module humans actions morally.

From this Framework of Morality and Ethics, it is imperative that we adopt moral objectives [goals] as GUIDE which establish why we must do/act optimally on what we are programmed to do.

You claim 'humans are programmed with a faculty of morality'. Best of luck providing evidence to support that claim.

But you're missing the point. If X is programmed to do Y, does that mean X should or ought to do Y? After all, if X must do Y - if that's what 'is programmed to' means - then should or ought to are irrelevant, because no other course is possible.

To say 'X should or ought to do Y' is to express an opinion, not to make a factual claim with a truth-value.

To repeat: trains run on rails - but does that mean they should or ought to run on rails?

You missed my critical points?
Trains are not programmed with a self-consciousness, self-awareness and freewill, ONLY humans are programmed with those elements.

Peter Holmes: If X is programmed to do Y, does that mean X should or ought to do Y?
Yes, because X is human who had the ability of discretion not to do Y.
If X do Y [evil], there is a potential harm to himself, others and the humanity and the human species.

Note you have a choice,
Either,
All humans ought to breathe
or
All humans ought not to breathe
as the universal rule.

If you study Hume seriously and thoroughly, you will find clues Hume was alluding there is a moral faculty within human nature as observed within humans.
There are loads of other empirical evidences to support the hypothesis, there is an inherent moral faculty within all humans where it is evolving, reasonably active in some and dormant in the majority.

Yes, because X is human who had the ability of discretion not to do Y.
If X do Y [evil], there is a potential harm to himself, others and the humanity and the human species.

In your opinion is that ability binary. or absolute; or is that ability relative to the man's mental health, knowledge, civil liberty, and ability to reason?

[Peter Holmes]

You missed my critical points?
Trains are not programmed with a self-consciousness, self-awareness and freewill, ONLY humans are programmed with those elements.

Peter Holmes: If X is programmed to do Y, does that mean X should or ought to do Y?
Yes, because X is human who had the ability of discretion not to do Y.
If X do Y [evil], there is a potential harm to himself, others and the humanity and the human species.

Note you have a choice,
Either,
All humans ought to breathe
or
All humans ought not to breathe
as the universal rule.

If you study Hume seriously and thoroughly, you will find clues Hume was alluding there is a moral faculty within human nature as observed within humans.
There are loads of other empirical evidences to support the hypothesis, there is an inherent moral faculty within all humans where it is evolving, reasonably active in some and dormant in the majority.

Still missing the point.

If X is programmed to do Y, but can choose not to, why should X do Y?

If you answer 'if Y is evil, then Y could harm X, others and the species' - so what? Why shouldn't X harm herself, others and the species?

What I'm trying to get you to understand is that, at the bottom of our moral arguments, explanations and justifications, there is always a moral judgement, belief or opinion - and never a fact. You want there to be facts - true factual assertions - and sound arguments - that somehow magically turn our moral judgements into facts. And that's impossible.

Peter Holmes: You want there to be facts - true factual assertions - and sound arguments - that somehow magically turn our moral judgements into facts. And that's impossible.

You are blind to your problem that you insist there is only one kind of facts, i.e. the Philosophical Realism's fact.
I have argued your ground on Philosophical Realism is unrealistic and untenable which contradict the basis the 'You are part and parcel of Reality - all there is" - which you agreed to.

What I have done is to rationally deduce from empirical facts to moral facts within a Framework of Morality, like;
how the Scientific Framework generate scientific facts;
how the Legal Framework generate legal facts;
how other Framework of Knowledge arrive at their own related facts;

As I had stated if you are constipated with Philosophical Realism's sh:t, you will NOT understand what I am proposing re moral facts.

Btw, all over the world, almost all humans [except the primitives] are subject to Judiciary and legal facts and legal objectives, e.g.
The laws re: "No Human ought to murder another human", else they will face punishment of death or otherwise.

What I propose is not political, legislature and judiciary which rely on enforcement but in accordance to the natural and spontaneous moral propensity within all humans.

In addition, what I am proposing re "moral fact" is already done in a crude manner at the present, whilst it is not systematic and effectively organized.

Nope. Any appeal to human nature to justify moral judgements as facts is fallacious, for two reasons.

1 There's no agreement - and certainly no intersubjective scientific consensus - as to what constitutes human nature. (Physiological facts, such as the need to breathe, are irrelevant here.)

2 Even if there were such a thing as human nature, that humans should should act in accordance with their nature is a matter of opinion, which is therefore subjective.

Just insisting that there are different kinds of facts, so that there can be moral facts, doesn't help your argument. You have to demonstrate the existence of moral facts. And just one example will do, to prove your case.

So to repeat: please propose what you think is a moral fact - a true factual assertion - which would therefore be false if things were different - and show why it's a fact. Hint: 'People should (be allowed to) breathe' is NOT a fact.