There are no moral facts

[Sculptor]

So - to be CLEAR.
You say there are such things as moral facts BUT you cannot think of one; or you do not want to say what you think is one because you know it will be shown to be false; or you forgot what they are?

• 1. 'All humans are programmed to be breathe to survive so not to die'

This is a biological fact, not a moral one.

2. Evidence: All surviving humans breathe.
3. 'all human ought* to breathe to survive else they die'

NO- that is opinion. They only "ought" to breath IF they want to live.

4. No human ought to stop another from breathing till they die.

WRONG.
Empirical FACT:
Some humans would prefer to die.

* 'ought' reflects the reality of imperative, urgency, necessity, matter of life or death,

Irrelevant.

[Immanuel Can]

It was only when Bacon and others who took the effort to establish Science-proper around 500 years ago

You've got your timing wrong.

But Francis Bacon was indeed the inventor of the scientific method. There's no speaking of "science-proper" as you put it, before there was a method defining it. There were technologies, inventions, discoveries, and all that, but no systematic method of testing and discipline that put all that into the perspective we now call "science."

But Francis Bacon, you say? You mean Francis Bacon the theologian? For he was as much that as he was a scientist. I can point you to his considerable and passionate theological writings, or you can google them for yourself. In fact, his method takes for granted the existence of laws and regularities in nature, because Francis Bacon already believed passionately in a law-giving and rational God. So from before the very start of science, you have theology.

Morality is a Johnny-come-lately mental function

Your timeline's wrong again here. Morality vastly predates "science-proper." "Science-proper" has existed since the 17th Century; morality is as old an issue as the human race itself.

...to formalize morality-proper as a specific branch of knowledge and practice with a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

That's like saying you're going to make King Edward the 1st the son-and-heir of King Edward the 5th. It's an anachronism, and also doomed to fail because of the fact-value divide.

What is that metaframework?

This is why I have been advocating for an efficient Framework and System of Morality & Ethics

That is not an answer to the question.

I didn't ask if you NEED such a framework; we both know you do. I asked you what yours IS. I want to know what it is. Give me its name. The lack of one is not good enough, obviously.

In contrast to morality, in politics, killing is acceptable if it favor the political interests but it is not universally condemned.

From what framework are you speaking when you make that claim? I think it's wrong, so you'll have to convince me you're right. What you say there, taken at face value, would justify the massacre of a minority if it were said by the majority to serve their view of the public interest -- just as when Jews were exterminated by the Nazis in Poland for their presumptive possibility of colluding with Communists. That was done in the majority public interest, and was certainly not universally condemned, so it was viewed as acceptable killing.

Would you be content to side with that?

Note the Framework that I explained above, i.e. like Science preferably and others.

Science has no opinion about genocide.

In fact, the Nazis used the scientific, rational, factory methods to round up and "process" their victims in such great numbers as they did. Their trains, gas chambers and ovens were all products of science, and Dr. Mengele worked assiduously in has "labs" on scientific problems involving unspeakable horrors he perpetrated on his victims.

Science was very present at Auschwitz. What wasn't acknowledged was morality. And all the science there present did not help with that problem one iota.

What is acceptable in Politics and religions is not universally condemned, thus cannot be morality.

Non-sequitur. It cannot be a requirement of morality that ALL people believe in it. Some people will clearly choose not to, as you well know. No, morality has to apply even when bad people DON'T believe in it or obey it. So "universal condemnation" as a criterion would leave us with no morality at all...except the rationally unjustified demand that "if everyone agrees, they're always right."

For morality, all maxims [laws, principles] must be applicable to ALL humans regardless.

Of course. But they must be applicable regardless of opinions -- objectively, in other words. Bad people cannot simply be granted a veto over moral truth, anymore than people get a veto over the laws of thermodynamics. If they are, you've destroyed any possibility of moral truth.

I have said many times, one of the moral maxim is,
'No human ought to kill another human'

Well, that maxim has been abundantly violated among the human race, down throughout history, and never more than in the last century, the modern period. So your theory there fails on its own terms. Killing is not "universally condemned." Some people think it's very useful.

[uwot]

...Dr. Mengele worked assiduously in has "labs" on scientific problems involving unspeakable horrors he perpetrated on his victims.

Mr Can, the unspeakable horrors inflicted by Mengele ended when his victims died. How do those horrors compare with the suffering the great majority of affected souls have endured since, and will do for eternity, for not accepting your version of Jesus Christ as their saviour? Your "Supreme Being" lets this happen, and you worship him for it.

[FlashDangerpants]

...Dr. Mengele worked assiduously in has "labs" on scientific problems involving unspeakable horrors he perpetrated on his victims.

Mr Can, the unspeakable horrors inflicted by Mengele ended when his victims died. How do those horrors compare with the suffering the great majority of affected souls have endured since, and will do for eternity, for not accepting your version of Jesus Christ as their saviour? Your "Supreme Being" lets this happen, and you worship him for it.

Well, you need to worship that guy, he will fuck you up real bad if you don't!

[Ishamael]

So, here's my issue: I'm torn.

On the one hand, I want to see things the way you guys and science and the like do. Honestly, I do. However, I have reservations on the notion of a "fact" that are getting in my way.

You see, I've always been of the thought that facts are most accurately factual claims. At best, they aim to tell you something about our world. Hell, let's be precise: They aim to tell you something about our universe.

Because it's a matter of "aim", something needs to happen for to them to become something that actually tells us something about our universe. That is no small feat. I mean, when you venture to verify a fact you prove it. It becomes a truth. OR it becomes an untruth -- I wouldn't call it a lie, because you weren't leading someone to believe that it was true, whilst knowing for yourself it was wrong.

Regardless, you are verifying the claim, and that seems to change it. It becomes less "Schrodinger's fact" -- both true and untrue until verified -- and something proven, right? But how do we prove it? Will science and the empirical accomplish this? I say no to that, because 100% of empirical evidence is circumstantial. Even if experiments have been replicated and the evidence repetitive, the best inferences you will achieve are still slave to their specific positions in time and space. Logically, you can't prove -- empirically -- that your outcomes in that circumstance could be consistent through every other position in space at that time.

It becomes a foolhardy claim, if you were to say that you have "empirically proven" anything.
Thus, I believe that facts cannot become truths, unless properly verified (proven) through a priori means.

This leaves me in a difficult situation, brought about by thoughts on the nature of the existence of morality. Of course, thoughts of this nature have been combated over by philosophers for centuries. Is morality objective? Rather, is there an objective morality? Does it matter for the concept of a moral fact?

Well, yes, I think it does. If facts must be verified and, otherwise, aim to tell us about the universe, a part of that universe is morality. Any unverified claim of this sort is a fact, as such it seems as if you can have moral facts. Does this give those facts any weight? Insofar as to work toward deductively verifying those claims, yes I think it does. Beyond that, I'd say you ought not take a moral fact as the gospel truth or anything.

However, did OP's question (in the other original topic, and not this inflammatory one) actually mean moral truths, maxim, or moral laws?
If morality is objective, then we are constantly aiming toward the discovery and verification of those truths. Necessarily, an objective morality directly implies a fact, since that is where the process of verification begins.

If morality doesn't exist objectively (my thought is that I don't see how that could be, please explain for me), then all that can exist are moral facts, since truth requires that a priori verification. Unless I am mistaken, a bona fide discovery and proof of a truth, by a priori means, does imply an objective existence. No? No objective morality means that we cannot verify. So, all we can ever have is "our best empirical guess" in a claim that is considered fact.

Anyways, is that clear? If not, could you help me clear it up? Thanks guys! I'm new here. Be gentle LOL

[Veritas Aequitas]

So - to be CLEAR.
You say there are such things as moral facts BUT you cannot think of one; or you do not want to say what you think is one because you know it will be shown to be false; or you forgot what they are?

• 1. 'All humans are programmed to be breathe to survive so not to die'

This is a biological fact, not a moral one.

Agree. I did not say that is a moral fact!

2. Evidence: All surviving humans breathe.
3. 'all human ought* to breathe to survive else they die'

NO- that is opinion. They only "ought" to breath IF they want to live.[/quote]
We have gone through this "a thousand" times.

Note the meaning of "opinion"
Opinion = a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

How can you be so blatantly ignorant of the meaning of 'opinion?
My premise 3 is based on fact and knowledge.

They only "ought" to breath IF they want to live.
This is very dumb.
DNA wise all humans are programmed to survive.
Naturally there is no question of "IF they want to live".
It is a fact of nature, all human ought [imperatively, must, need to, no choice] to breathe else the die.

4. No human ought to stop another from breathing till they die.

WRONG.
Empirical FACT:
Some humans would prefer to die.

We have also argued this many times.
Those ordinary humans [the suicidal] who choose to die prematurely without "reasonable justifications" are mentally ill as recognized in the DSM-V.

• Suicidal behavior disorder as a diagnostic entity in the DSM-5 classification system
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4102277/

Even for those who prefer to die prematurely based on "reasonable justifications" e.g. the terminally ill - that is still a case of contravening the laws of morality. But on the Ethical side such exception would be permitted. However preventive steps will be taken to prevent such situations to the optimal levels.

* 'ought' reflects the reality of imperative, urgency, necessity, matter of life or death,

Irrelevant.

Note my counter above.

Note: all your above moral-facts-denying impulses are not based on sound reasoning but merely based on an active ideological impulse - where its origin is from the Logical Positivists. I will prepare a justification on this thesis later.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, here's my issue: I'm torn.

On the one hand, I want to see things the way you guys and science and the like do. Honestly, I do. However, I have reservations on the notion of a "fact" that are getting in my way.

.....
Anyways, is that clear? If not, could you help me clear it up? Thanks guys! I'm new here. Be gentle LOL

Not sure of your precise point.
If you are not sure of 'what is a fact' this is the thread to explore;

What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
The moral fact deniers has a different definition of 'fact' from the norm.

If you are not sure whether there are moral facts, then this thread;

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

If you do not agree there are moral facts, then, provide your arguments and justifications.

If you are accept there are moral facts, don't expect the moral-facts-denier to be "gentle", they will simply tear you to pieces as driven by their dogmatic ideology.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It was only when Bacon and others who took the effort to establish Science-proper around 500 years ago

You've got your timing wrong.

But Francis Bacon was indeed the inventor of the scientific method. There's no speaking of "science-proper" as you put it, before there was a method defining it. There were technologies, inventions, discoveries, and all that, but no systematic method of testing and discipline that put all that into the perspective we now call "science."

But Francis Bacon, you say? You mean Francis Bacon the theologian? For he was as much that as he was a scientist. I can point you to his considerable and passionate theological writings, or you can google them for yourself. In fact, his method takes for granted the existence of laws and regularities in nature, because Francis Bacon already believed passionately in a law-giving and rational God. So from before the very start of science, you have theology.

You missed my point.

DNA wise all humans are "programmed" with an inherent function with the drive to acquire knowledge, i.e. "to know" which culminated in Science-proper from Bacon and later, others.

Theology on the other hand is not "programmed" inherently but emerged via 'nurture' in response to the terrible impulses of the DNA-driven existential crisis. This is why Theology is not adopted by ALL humans, like breathing, driven to know [Science], and other generic features of human nature.

That Bacon was a theologian and founded the Scientific Method, does not mean 'Science' is from theology. Note correlation is not causation. This is like Islam claiming for all the associated scientific discoveries by Muslim scientists.

Therefore if you want to get down to the roots, obviously 'Science' is an inherent drive that preceded theology.

Note:

The earliest roots of science can be traced to Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia in around 3500 to 3000 BCE.
-wiki

This is even before any known 'theological system'.

My point with Science-proper refer to the formal scientific method that is in place at the present.

Morality is a Johnny-come-lately mental function

Your timeline's wrong again here. Morality vastly predates "science-proper." "Science-proper" has existed since the 17th Century; morality is as old an issue as the human race itself.

You missed my point again.

As I had stated, there is an inherent moral function within the human brain/mind.
I'd linked this

• https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
  Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants

The above indicate morality is inherent within the DNA, i.e. nature. Experiments were done with babies to exclude the influence of 'nurturing' elements.

My point is the inherent moral function was dormant within humanity since the emergence of homo-sapiens.
But currently there is a trend of the activation and unfolding of the moral function within humanity and more people are getting more involved and serious in the subject of morality.

At present there is still no proper formal system of morality like that of Science-proper, this is what I meant by morality is Johnny-come-lately. What we have are pseudo-moral-systems from religions, political, tribal groups, etc..

What we need for morality is an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics with proper foundation, structures, principles and other essentials grounded on justified moral facts.

...to formalize morality-proper as a specific branch of knowledge and practice with a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

That's like saying you're going to make King Edward the 1st the son-and-heir of King Edward the 5th. It's an anachronism, and also doomed to fail because of the fact-value divide.

If Science can be formalized into a Framework and System of Knowledge as with all other fields of knowledge and practices, why can't Morality be subjected to the same?

Fact-Value divide is baseless.
Note this thread,
Hillary Putnam: Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29759

What is that metaframework?

This is why I have been advocating for an efficient Framework and System of Morality & Ethics

That is not an answer to the question.

I didn't ask if you NEED such a framework; we both know you do. I asked you what yours IS. I want to know what it is. Give me its name. The lack of one is not good enough, obviously.

ALL efficient Framework and System of Knowledge and Practices has generic good features and general principles, i.e.

• -foundation with justified true beliefs/facts,
  -principles
  -assumptions
  -limitations,
  -testability
  -verifiability
  -structured processes
  -systematic
  -others

From what framework are you speaking when you make that claim? I think it's wrong, so you'll have to convince me you're right. What you say there, taken at face value, would justify the massacre of a minority if it were said by the majority to serve their view of the public interest -- just as when Jews were exterminated by the Nazis in Poland for their presumptive possibility of colluding with Communists. That was done in the majority public interest, and was certainly not universally condemned, so it was viewed as acceptable killing.

Would you be content to side with that?

Note the Framework that I explained above, i.e. like Science preferably and others.

Science has no opinion about genocide.

In fact, the Nazis used the scientific, rational, factory methods to round up and "process" their victims in such great numbers as they did. Their trains, gas chambers and ovens were all products of science, and Dr. Mengele worked assiduously in has "labs" on scientific problems involving unspeakable horrors he perpetrated on his victims.

Science was very present at Auschwitz. What wasn't acknowledged was morality. And all the science there present did not help with that problem one iota.

Missed my point again.

My point is, the Moral F/S should be organized along the lines of the Scientific F/S in terms of the generic organizational features listed above, not in terms of its constitutional details and contents.

What is acceptable in Politics and religions is not universally condemned, thus cannot be morality.

Non-sequitur. It cannot be a requirement of morality that ALL people believe in it. Some people will clearly choose not to, as you well know. No, morality has to apply even when bad people DON'T believe in it or obey it. So "universal condemnation" as a criterion would leave us with no morality at all...except the rationally unjustified demand that "if everyone agrees, they're always right."

As I had stated above,
DNA wise all humans are programmed with an inherent moral function within the brain/mind.
I have given the analogy of breathing, i.e.
all human ought to breathe else they die.
There is no question of anyone disagreeing to the above, except the mentally ill recognized in DSM-V.

Morality-proper thus involved abstracting and justifying moral facts from empirical evidences to be used as GUIDEs ONLY and they are not enforceable with any threats.
It is only natural, there will be evil-laden people who will not comply with the above fact-based moral guidance, but they cannot deny the existence of the above moral facts.

At present it is too late to do anything with those who are inherently [unfortunate] to be born with evil tendencies.
What the Moral and Ethical F/S does is to ensure future generations individuals self-manage their inherent 'evil' tendencies with fool proof techniques so that the net-resultant behaviors are spontaneously moral ones.

For morality, all maxims [laws, principles] must be applicable to ALL humans regardless.

Of course. But they must be applicable regardless of opinions -- objectively, in other words. Bad people cannot simply be granted a veto over moral truth, anymore than people get a veto over the laws of thermodynamics. If they are, you've destroyed any possibility of moral truth.

Seem to contradict your own point above?
Note as my point above.

I have said many times, one of the moral maxim is,
'No human ought to kill another human'

Well, that maxim has been abundantly violated among the human race, down throughout history, and never more than in the last century, the modern period. So your theory there fails on its own terms. Killing is not "universally condemned." Some people think it's very useful.

You are contradicting your own point again.
You said above,
"Bad people cannot simply be granted a veto over moral truth, anymore than people get a veto over the laws of thermodynamics."

As I had stated the moral truth or moral fact is;
'No human ought to kill another human'

As you stated above, no bad people [actually ALL] can veto the above moral fact.
But in nature, there will be people [unfortunately] who will kill other humans.

But it is because of the 'ought' in the above maxim within a Moral F/S that humanity will be triggered into action and must find ways to prevent future generations from driven by any impulse to kill another human.

If there is no Moral F/S with 'ought' and 'ought-not' people will be indifferent and could not care less nor initiated to find preventive solutions.

This is why we need an effective Moral Framework and System and Ethics
with proper foundation, structures, principles and other essentials grounded on justified moral facts,
in addition, without any elements of enforcement, threats of punishments like those of the Abrahamic and other religions, political system and others.

[Sculptor]

Note: all your above moral-facts-denying impulses are not based on sound reasoning but merely based on an active ideological impulse - where its origin is from the Logical Positivists. I will prepare a justification on this thesis later.

There are a long list of very good reasons why the Logical-Positivists are thoroughly discredited in the dusts of 20thC history.
LP has failed to produce anything of worth. The first glimmmers of LP started nearly 100 years ago, but by 1970 was as dead as a duck.
It had nothing to offer then and nothing is going to change that.

Your arguments do not come near to their formulation which were clever but useless. Your argument is too full of holes to get near to what their vision was. So how much less worthy is your position?

[Immanuel Can]

DNA wise all humans are "programmed" with an inherent function with the drive to acquire knowledge, i.e. "to know" which culminated in Science-proper from Bacon and later, others.

Theology on the other hand is not "programmed" inherently but emerged via 'nurture' in response to the terrible impulses of the DNA-driven existential crisis. This is why Theology is not adopted by ALL humans, like breathing, driven to know [Science], and other generic features of human nature.

Again, the opposite is historically true.

All ancient societies had concepts of gods, or in the case of the Hebrews, the God. Invention and tools are about equally old, so far as we know. "Science" on the other hand, did not emerge until the 17th Century A.D.

That Bacon was a theologian and founded the Scientific Method, does not mean 'Science' is from theology. Note correlation is not causation.

Incorrect again. Bacon was quite frank about his debt to theology. So it's not just "correlation," we are looking at; it's actual attribution by the very person who created the method.

Note:

The earliest roots of science can be traced to Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia in around 3500 to 3000 BCE.
-wiki

This is even before any known 'theological system'

.
Wrong again, twice. The ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians were extremely religious, as we know abundantly from their archaeology. And there was no "science-proper" as you call it, until Bacon.

Morality is a Johnny-come-lately mental function

Your timeline's wrong again here. Morality vastly predates "science-proper." "Science-proper" has existed since the 17th Century; morality is as old an issue as the human race itself.

You missed my point again.

That seems to be happening regularly. That could be my fault, as you suggest, or....?

As I had stated, there is an inherent moral function within the human brain/mind.

If that's true, then morality is not a "johnny-come-lately" at all, contrary to what you said earlier. Now you're claiming it's innate and universal. And that means it was around about the same amount of time as theology, and long before "science-proper" ever existed.

....currently there is a trend of the activation and unfolding of the moral function within humanity and more people are getting more involved and serious in the subject of morality.

Hilarious. Just now, you mean? People have just discovered morality now? And they're really suddenly morally earnest?

Have you lived in this world lately?

At present there is still no proper formal system of morality like that of Science-proper, this is what I meant by morality is Johnny-come-lately.

Hogwash. Since you don't even have a "formal moral system" in mind yourself -- I asked you about it a message or so ago, and you couldn't tell me what it would be (if I'm wrong, say its name now, and you'll prove me wrong), you have no way of knowing what there "is still not" in that regard. You don't have a way of knowing what's lacking.

What we need for morality is an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics with proper foundation, structures, principles and other essentials grounded on justified moral facts.

Now you're admitting you don't even have one! You say "we need" it. How do you even conclude such a thing is possible, especially give the fact-value divide?

If Science can be formalized into a Framework and System of Knowledge as with all other fields of knowledge and practices, why can't Morality be subjected to the same?

Because empirical facts are not themselves values. And morality is concerned with values.

Fact-Value divide is baseless.

Incorrect. But I'm sure you're getting used to being wrong by now, so perhaps that doesn't trouble you.

Hmmm...I can see I'm not making a dent. Be well.

[Sculptor]

DNA wise all humans are "programmed" with an inherent function with the drive to acquire knowledge, i.e. "to know" which culminated in Science-proper from Bacon and later, others.

Theology on the other hand is not "programmed" inherently but emerged via 'nurture' in response to the terrible impulses of the DNA-driven existential crisis. This is why Theology is not adopted by ALL humans, like breathing, driven to know [Science], and other generic features of human nature.

Again, the opposite is historically true.

All ancient societies had concepts of gods, or in the case of the Hebrews, the God. Invention and tools are about equally old, so far as we know. "Science" on the other hand, did not emerge until the 17th Century A.D.

You have to have a very wretched view of science to say that.
When a chimp trims a stick to fish termites out of a mound he has invented science.
Science predates religion by millions of years.
Educate yourself

La Pensee Sauvage
by Claude Levi-Strauss

[Sculptor]

DNA wise all humans are "programmed" with an inherent function with the drive to acquire knowledge, i.e. "to know" which culminated in Science-proper from Bacon and later, others.

Theology on the other hand is not "programmed" inherently but emerged via 'nurture' in response to the terrible impulses of the DNA-driven existential crisis. This is why Theology is not adopted by ALL humans, like breathing, driven to know [Science], and other generic features of human nature.

Again, the opposite is historically true.

All ancient societies had concepts of gods, or in the case of the Hebrews, the God. Invention and tools are about equally old, so far as we know. "Science" on the other hand, did not emerge until the 17th Century A.D.

You have to have a very wretched view of science to say that.
When a chimp trims a stick to fish termites out of a mound he has invented science.
Science predates religion by millions of years.
Educate yourself

La Pensee Sauvage
by Claude Levi-Strauss

[Immanuel Can]

DNA wise all humans are "programmed" with an inherent function with the drive to acquire knowledge, i.e. "to know" which culminated in Science-proper from Bacon and later, others.

Theology on the other hand is not "programmed" inherently but emerged via 'nurture' in response to the terrible impulses of the DNA-driven existential crisis. This is why Theology is not adopted by ALL humans, like breathing, driven to know [Science], and other generic features of human nature.

Again, the opposite is historically true.

All ancient societies had concepts of gods, or in the case of the Hebrews, the God. Invention and tools are about equally old, so far as we know. "Science" on the other hand, did not emerge until the 17th Century A.D.

You have to have a very wretched view of science to say that.

Oh, Sculpy...you're back. How nice of you to return.

[Peter Holmes]

That being so, you have no condemnation for racism, dishonesty, violence, rape, pedophilia, wife abuse, fascism, genocide...and so on, because as you say, it's only "your opinion," no more substantial or necessary for others than your aesthetic view of the Mona Lisa. Are you happy to be okay with letting other people practice such things? If they find them aesthetically or personally pleasing, that's just okee dokee with you?

No, I morally condemn all those things, ...You seem fixated with the stupid idea that I shouldn't or can't consistently morally condemn them, because I don't think there are moral facts.

You can only personally dislike them...but condemning them is different. It invokes the agreement of others, and in fact, implies they SHOULD agree with your condemnation of those things, and hence would be bad people if they did not.

This is arrant nonsense. Moral condemnation does not 'invoke the agreement of others' - you're just making this up. And anyway, that I think there are no moral facts doesn't mean I don't or can't want others to agree with me. And if they don't, the argument begins.

But you say there is no factual basis whatsoever to justify your condemnation beyond the level of "Peter doesn't like.." for you insist,

Here's me talking: 'There are no moral facts, and I think these things are morally wrong.'

And you ask,

Now, why is that a logical contradiction?

Because you can't expect anyone else to feel they SHOULD agree with your alleged condemnation.

More nonsense. I can provide strong justifications for my moral opinions. And how dare you say my moral condemnation of the devil you worship - that condoned and never condemned slavery - and my moral condemnation of you for worshipping it and wanting to please it - is 'alledged'? You can shove it - slavery apologist.

And to be clear, you can't show that my two claims are logically contradictory. Even if I can't expect anyone to agree with me - that doesn't make my claims contradictory.

So you're not actually condemning those things at all...you're just saying, by implication of your above theory, "Peter doesn't happen to like them; but if you others do, go ahead, because I have no basis to say otherwise." I doubt that such a pseudo-condemnation gives any consolation to the victims of the crimes you're avoiding really condemning. In fact, if you hold that theory, you're allowing that such evils could flourish without any legitimated moral censure, let alone a collective penalty or justice.

Bollocks. My condemnation of slavery is perfectly rational. And your lack of a moral compass - 'whatever I think my invented thinks is morally good and bad is morally good and bad' - is, frankly, reprehensible.

[Immanuel Can]

Moral condemnation does not 'invoke the agreement of others'...

Then explain what "this is wrong" means, more than "Peter doesn't happen to like X." If you can't, then you're obviously wrong about that. A condemnation that is strictly private is no moral condemnation at all.

In fact, at least in many cases, it just might be effectively the same as silent complicity: "I refuse to condemn in general or in public, so I will passively permit anyone who does it to keep doing it."

But you say there is no factual basis whatsoever to justify your condemnation beyond the level of "Peter doesn't like.." for you insist,

Here's me talking: 'There are no moral facts, and I think these things are morally wrong.'

And you ask,

Now, why is that a logical contradiction?

Because you can't expect anyone else to feel they SHOULD agree with your alleged condemnation.

More nonsense. I can provide strong justifications for my moral opinions.

But you say that you don't expect anyone else to have to listen to those justifications. They're just Peter's opinions with, you say, no agreement by others required. So they aren't justifications for anyone else. You insist they have no public or universal implications.

Fine "justification," that: so weak nobody else needs to take it to heart.

So you're not actually condemning those things at all...you're just saying, by implication of your above theory, "Peter doesn't happen to like them; but if you others do, go ahead, because I have no basis to say otherwise." I doubt that such a pseudo-condemnation gives any consolation to the victims of the crimes you're avoiding really condemning. In fact, if you hold that theory, you're allowing that such evils could flourish without any legitimated moral censure, let alone a collective penalty or justice.

Bollocks. My condemnation of slavery is perfectly rational.

Who are you "rationalizing" to? You don't need a "rationalization," since you say you're not convincing anybody else. You're just talking about your own "opinion," you say, which you seem to need to "rationalize" to yourself, you say, but in which you have so little general confidence you don't think you can make any public or universal case for it.

And your lack of a moral compass - 'whatever I think my invented thinks is morally good and bad is morally good and bad' - is, frankly, reprehensible.

That's not anything like what I said, but I find your feigned moral indignation invoked in misrepresenting it not only disingenuous, but actually funny...and given your view, irrational.

What does your indignation, after all, actually signal? Nothing can anything be "reprehensible" objectively when you don't think any of your moral "opinions" can be obligatory for a single other person on earth. Nobody then needs to "reprehend" anything.

Instead, it just means, "Peter doesn't like it," again. Is anyone obligated to care what Peter happens to like or dislike? You haven't shown that they are.

Take your "slavery" case, since we agree it's evil. Explain what you mean by your condemnation of it, but do that without implying anyone else has to agree. Because those are the terms you've set for yourself: morality does not invoke the agreement of others, you said.