Is morality objective or subjective?

[RCSaunders]

Objectivists have to demonstrate how a factual assertion can logically entail a moral assertion, so that to negate the moral assertion produces a logical contradiction.

I'm certain I'm gettin' this wrong, but...

Factual assertion: a man belongs to himself

...therefore...

Moral assertion: it's wrong to leash him

If we negate the moral assertion and say it's okay to leash a man does this not produce the logical contradiction?

A man belongs to himself but it's okay to leash him.

1. It is true, every individual does, "belong to himself," in the sense that he has sole authority for his own life and choices and is totally responsible for his own life." 2. It is also true that it is wrong for one human being to violate by force another individuals self-sovereignty, by harming or enslaving him, for example. But, for the life of me, I do not see how you can derive 2. from the fact of 1.

I do not see how what is good and right for me places any kind of obligation on anyone else. I am my own person, and anything that interferes with my freedom to live as I choose is wrong for me, but, I do not see how that makes it wrong for some else to interfere with my freedom.

If it is wrong for them (and it is) it has to be because it is bad for them (and it is). What it is to me is irrelevant. Even if, hypothetically, it could be good for me, it would still be bad for them to interfere in my life because of what it makes them and does to them.

This is why my view removes the excuse of the meddlers that their interference in other's lives is, "for their own good."
[/quote]

[henry quirk]

for the life of me, I do not see how you can derive 2. from the fact of 1

Don't worry about it: I sure as hell don't.

Every man can say I belong to me: leashin' me, therefore, is wrong knowin' it to be true, but nobody wants to stick their neck out and say it in the public sphere. It's unfashionable nowadays to acknowledge natural rights.

Me: I've never been very fashionable.

Anyway, again: don't worry about it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Others following this mammoth discussion can decide for themselves, of course. But I think you haven't truly addressed this problem for moral objectivism:

Objectivists have to demonstrate how a factual assertion can logically entail a moral assertion, so that to negate the moral assertion produces a logical contradiction. To my knowledge, neither you nor any objectivist here has done that. Every attempt has merely assumed the moral conclusion is, somehow, implied by the factual premise, which begs the question.

To me, that's the heart of it. Do that, in the form of a valid and sound argument, and your case is made. I wait with unbated breath.

I understand your point and expectation very clearly, i.e.

• P1 - Fact - no moral elements
  P2 - Fact - no moral elements
  C1- Therefore no moral conclusion can follow.

But the above [re definition of fact] is based on your selected specific Framework and System of Knowledge, i.e. from that of ordinary language and worst from the inherited ideology of the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists.

In addition, your reliance on Hume's 'No Ought from IS' [NOFI] that is relevant to his time* is too loose to effective for dealing with morality our modern times.
You have to read up the morality and ethics of Hume's predecessors [the dogmatic rationalists and theologians] to understand Hume's point re NOFI.
This NOFI had also been refuted by many modern philosophers since Kant till to date.

The point is your specified framework above is not absolute and there are other FSKs that produce their specific facts,in this case the Moral & Ethics FSK.
Your reliance on one flimsy FSK to justify your point is too weak.
I suggest you do a thorough literature review of Morality and Ethics [..I have done that] to understand where your flimsy point stands in the greater picture.

I have argued in so many posts and threads, empirical moral realism [objectivism]* is tenable from within a Moral Framework and System in generating justified true moral facts to be used as GUIDES only and not enforceable on individuals.
* I am not arguing for moral objectivism of theology/God and those of Platonic forms.

One significant point is 'morality' [the management of good over evil] is very critical to ensure the optimal well being of the individuals and humanity.
Whatever alternatives you have for moral realism [moral relativism] they are not effective to deal with the impending threats emerging against the human species.

To implement moral realism effectively [for future generations, not now], we need to abstract moral facts as justified empirically and philosophically - which I have done.

Blather.

I keep showing as above and countless times, your definition of 'fact' and 'factual' are very specific to your Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] which originated from the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists.
You have not justified why your framework and system of knowledge in this case should be the authority [as if is a God] over all other FSKs.

I have explained to you what is generally accepted as fact, i.e.
What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
As above, specific facts are generated from their respective FSK and Justified True Moral Facts are justified from the Moral FSK.
But you have not refuted the above.

All you have been doing is making noises without refuting my claims.

Objectivists have to demonstrate how a factual assertion can logically entail a moral assertion, so that to negate the moral assertion produces a logical contradiction. To my knowledge, neither you nor any objectivist here has done that. Every attempt has merely assumed the moral conclusion is, somehow, implied by the factual premise, which begs the question.

Do you even understand what is objectivity?
What is objectivity [independent of individuals' beliefs and opinions] is inter-subjectivity and the degree of objectivity will correspond to the proven credibility of the FSK, i.e. the Scientific FSK being the standard.

I know Moral Objectivists like the pseudo-theological moral systems and those relying on Platonic forms will not be able to justify their moral objectivity sufficiently since theirs are groundless.

In my case, i.e. empirical-moral-realism is grounded on Justified True Moral Facts which I have demonstrated 'a thousand' times.
You have not bothered to refute my claims but rather make empty noises.

To me, that's the heart of it. Produce the goods, in the form of a valid and sound argument, and your case is made. I wait with unbated breath.

And when you find you can't, I suggest you do the rational thing and change your mind - which is an okay thing to do.

As mentioned above, I have done so, but you have not refuted my claims.

Your challenge is based on ignorance.
All you want is, insisting others to play by the rules of your small minded game, where you are ignorant there are so many other more games which are more realistic, practical and efficient in terms of morality.

Change my mind? to what?
why should I consider a subjective/relative moral system which is so inferior to my empirical objective moral system?
One alternative to change my mind to would be moral nihilism - you agree with this?

The other is utilitaranism which is loaded with negatives and criticisms,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Criticisms
where the cons outweigh the pros.

[Peter Holmes]

I understand your point and expectation very clearly, i.e.

• P1 - Fact - no moral elements
  P2 - Fact - no moral elements
  C1- Therefore no moral conclusion can follow.

But the above [re definition of fact] is based on your selected specific Framework and System of Knowledge, i.e. from that of ordinary language and worst from the inherited ideology of the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists.

In addition, your reliance on Hume's 'No Ought from IS' [NOFI] that is relevant to his time* is too loose to effective for dealing with morality our modern times.
You have to read up the morality and ethics of Hume's predecessors [the dogmatic rationalists and theologians] to understand Hume's point re NOFI.
This NOFI had also been refuted by many modern philosophers since Kant till to date.

The point is your specified framework above is not absolute and there are other FSKs that produce their specific facts,in this case the Moral & Ethics FSK.
Your reliance on one flimsy FSK to justify your point is too weak.
I suggest you do a thorough literature review of Morality and Ethics [..I have done that] to understand where your flimsy point stands in the greater picture.

I have argued in so many posts and threads, empirical moral realism [objectivism]* is tenable from within a Moral Framework and System in generating justified true moral facts to be used as GUIDES only and not enforceable on individuals.
* I am not arguing for moral objectivism of theology/God and those of Platonic forms.

One significant point is 'morality' [the management of good over evil] is very critical to ensure the optimal well being of the individuals and humanity.
Whatever alternatives you have for moral realism [moral relativism] they are not effective to deal with the impending threats emerging against the human species.

To implement moral realism effectively [for future generations, not now], we need to abstract moral facts as justified empirically and philosophically - which I have done.

Blather.

I keep showing as above and countless times, your definition of 'fact' and 'factual' are very specific to your Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] which originated from the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists.
You have not justified why your framework and system of knowledge in this case should be the authority [as if is a God] over all other FSKs.

I have explained to you what is generally accepted as fact, i.e.
What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
As above, specific facts are generated from their respective FSK and Justified True Moral Facts are justified from the Moral FSK.
But you have not refuted the above.

All you have been doing is making noises without refuting my claims.

Objectivists have to demonstrate how a factual assertion can logically entail a moral assertion, so that to negate the moral assertion produces a logical contradiction. To my knowledge, neither you nor any objectivist here has done that. Every attempt has merely assumed the moral conclusion is, somehow, implied by the factual premise, which begs the question.

Do you even understand what is objectivity?
What is objectivity [independent of individuals' beliefs and opinions] is inter-subjectivity and the degree of objectivity will correspond to the proven credibility of the FSK, i.e. the Scientific FSK being the standard.

I know Moral Objectivists like the pseudo-theological moral systems and those relying on Platonic forms will not be able to justify their moral objectivity sufficiently since theirs are groundless.

In my case, i.e. empirical-moral-realism is grounded on Justified True Moral Facts which I have demonstrated 'a thousand' times.
You have not bothered to refute my claims but rather make empty noises.

To me, that's the heart of it. Produce the goods, in the form of a valid and sound argument, and your case is made. I wait with unbated breath.

And when you find you can't, I suggest you do the rational thing and change your mind - which is an okay thing to do.

As mentioned above, I have done so, but you have not refuted my claims.

Your challenge is based on ignorance.
All you want is, insisting others to play by the rules of your small minded game, where you are ignorant there are so many other more games which are more realistic, practical and efficient in terms of morality.

Change my mind? to what?
why should I consider a subjective/relative moral system which is so inferior to my empirical objective moral system?
One alternative to change my mind to would be moral nihilism - you agree with this?

The other is utilitaranism which is loaded with negatives and criticisms,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Criticisms
where the cons outweigh the pros.

1 The burden of proof for the existence of moral facts is with moral objectivists - unmet so far, to my knowledge. In the absence of moral facts, the debate about the viability of moral theories is wide open, as it has always been.

2 The logical positivists's dismissal of non-factual discourse as meaningless because not empirically verifiable was a mistake, based on a metaphysical delusion about the nature of what we call truth, facts and objectivity. Moral and aesthetic assertions - and all assertions of value - are obviously meanigful.

3 Objectivists have to demonstrate how a factual assertion can logically entail a moral assertion, so that to negate the moral assertion produces a logical contradiction. To assume the moral conclusion is, somehow, implied by the factual premise begs the question.

To me, that's the heart of it. Produce the goods, in the form of a valid and sound argument, and your case is made. I wait with unbated breath.

[Skepdick]

To me, that's the heart of it. Produce the goods, in the form of a valid and sound argument, and your case is made. I wait with unbated breath.

What a fucking troll. Insists facts are not linguistic. Also insists on linguistic arguments.

That's how you know you are being taken for a fool by an idiot philosopher in a game you can't win.

[Peter Holmes]

It is true, every individual does, "belong to himself," in the sense that he has sole authority for his own life and choices and is totally responsible for his own life." 2. It is also true that it is wrong for one human being to violate by force another individuals self-sovereignty, by harming or enslaving him, for example. But, for the life of me, I do not see how you can derive 2. from the fact of 1.

But this is the rub. Both of the things that you say are true are moral principles - things that you, I and many of us hold to - not facts - true factual assertions. In this context, the expression 'it is true that...' is only an emphatic.

[uwot]

Sorry, but it's not on the money.

I think you and I agree that there are no moral facts analogous to 'drop a brick and it falls to the ground', but in the fuzzy logic that everyone uses in moral practice, "a man belongs to himself" isn't an objectionable starting point in my view, as long as it includes women and children.

[uwot]

... I'm just gonna live my life as if I'm in charge of it.

You are in charge of it, uwot. That is the whole answer to the question.

It is your life, you are its only authority, it is totally your responsibility, and yours to make of it all you can and choose to.

I think you, henry and I are united in this. The difference, certainly between myself and henry, is what we see as our 'moral' responsibilities to others; by my reckoning henry's a heartless bounder and by his, I'm a meddling commie bastard.

[Peter Holmes]

Sorry, but it's not on the money.

I think you and I agree that there are no moral facts analogous to 'drop a brick and it falls to the ground', but in the fuzzy logic that everyone uses in moral practice, "a man belongs to himself" isn't an objectionable starting point in my view, as long as it includes women and children.

I agree - it's a reasonable principle, along with others. But I also think a lion belongs to itself, and so does a whale - whatever that really means. Moral principles and their scope are matters of opinion. They're not facts. And the idea that they are facts - even fuzzy facts - is what leads to throwing homosexuals off tall buildings, or flying planes into those buildings - or shooting lions for fun, or slaughtering whales for profit.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As mentioned above, I have done so, but you have not refuted my claims.

Your challenge is based on ignorance.
All you want is, insisting others to play by the rules of your small minded game, where you are ignorant there are so many other more games which are more realistic, practical and efficient in terms of morality.

Change my mind? to what?
why should I consider a subjective/relative moral system which is so inferior to my empirical objective moral system?
One alternative to change my mind to would be moral nihilism - you agree with this?

The other is utilitaranism which is loaded with negatives and criticisms,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Criticisms
where the cons outweigh the pros.

1 The burden of proof for the existence of moral facts is with moral objectivists - unmet so far, to my knowledge. In the absence of moral facts, the debate about the viability of moral theories is wide open, as it has always been.

2 The logical positivists's dismissal of non-factual discourse as meaningless because not empirically verifiable was a mistake, based on a metaphysical delusion about the nature of what we call truth, facts and objectivity. Moral and aesthetic assertions - and all assertions of value - are obviously meanigful.

3 Objectivists have to demonstrate how a factual assertion can logically entail a moral assertion, so that to negate the moral assertion produces a logical contradiction. To assume the moral conclusion is, somehow, implied by the factual premise begs the question.

To me, that's the heart of it. Produce the goods, in the form of a valid and sound argument, and your case is made. I wait with unbated breath.

Despite my explanation your cognitive faculty is so faulty that you cannot see the rationale.

Note this;

• 1. The Astronomy Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] produces facts of astronomy
  2. The Economic FSK produces economic facts
  3. The Legal FSK produces legal facts
  4. The political FSK produces political facts
  5. The Geographical FSK produces geographical facts
  6. Specific FSK produces its specific facts.
  7. The Moral FSK produces moral facts.

Surely you cannot deny, the Economic FSK cannot produce geographical facts.
It is the same with each specific FSK, i.e. cannot produce facts other than that is specific to it's FSK.

Now your challenge is based on your specific 'Peter Holmes specified' FSK and its specific rules.
Since your FSK is not a moral FSK, it is obvious there is no way moral facts can be produced from your specified FSK.
You are asking for the impossible, i.e. to produce moral facts from the rules of your specific FSK.

What I have demonstrated is accordance with the principle,
6. A Specific FSK produces its specific facts.
I have produced Justified True Moral Facts from a specific Moral FSK - justifications already provided but you simply ignore them without any counter that is rational.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Sorry, but it's not on the money.

I think you and I agree that there are no moral facts analogous to 'drop a brick and it falls to the ground', but in the fuzzy logic that everyone uses in moral practice, "a man belongs to himself" isn't an objectionable starting point in my view, as long as it includes women and children.

I agree - it's a reasonable principle, along with others. But I also think a lion belongs to itself, and so does a whale - whatever that really means. Moral principles and their scope are matters of opinion. They're not facts.

Your thinking is too rhetorical and perverted.

If you use the term 'opinion' in such a rhetorical manner, then note this;

I have always argued,

Scientific facts are also a matter of opinions, i.e. conjectures to start with.
It is only that such opinions/conjectures got 'polished' up to a high degree via justifications within the Scientific Framework and System, that they are accepted as facts representing their respective referent [state-of-affairs].

If you insist,
"Moral principles and their scope are matters of opinion"
then, as with Scientific facts from opinions/conjectures,
Moral Facts are opinions/conjectures that got 'polished' up to a high degree via justifications within the Moral Framework and System, that they are accepted as Justified True Moral Facts representing their respective referent [state-of-affairs].

And the idea that they are facts - even fuzzy facts - is what leads to throwing homosexuals off tall buildings, or flying planes into those buildings - or shooting lions for fun, or slaughtering whales for profit.

How can the moral maxim with the moral FSK,
'no human ought to kill another'
logically and possibly leads to throwing homosexuals off tall buildings, or flying planes into those buildings??

[Peter Holmes]

As mentioned above, I have done so, but you have not refuted my claims.

Your challenge is based on ignorance.
All you want is, insisting others to play by the rules of your small minded game, where you are ignorant there are so many other more games which are more realistic, practical and efficient in terms of morality.

Change my mind? to what?
why should I consider a subjective/relative moral system which is so inferior to my empirical objective moral system?
One alternative to change my mind to would be moral nihilism - you agree with this?

The other is utilitaranism which is loaded with negatives and criticisms,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Criticisms
where the cons outweigh the pros.

1 The burden of proof for the existence of moral facts is with moral objectivists - unmet so far, to my knowledge. In the absence of moral facts, the debate about the viability of moral theories is wide open, as it has always been.

2 The logical positivists's dismissal of non-factual discourse as meaningless because not empirically verifiable was a mistake, based on a metaphysical delusion about the nature of what we call truth, facts and objectivity. Moral and aesthetic assertions - and all assertions of value - are obviously meanigful.

3 Objectivists have to demonstrate how a factual assertion can logically entail a moral assertion, so that to negate the moral assertion produces a logical contradiction. To assume the moral conclusion is, somehow, implied by the factual premise begs the question.

To me, that's the heart of it. Produce the goods, in the form of a valid and sound argument, and your case is made. I wait with unbated breath.

Despite my explanation your cognitive faculty is so faulty that you cannot see the rationale.

Note this;

• 1. The Astronomy Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] produces facts of astronomy
  2. The Economic FSK produces economic facts
  3. The Legal FSK produces legal facts
  4. The political FSK produces political facts
  5. The Geographical FSK produces geographical facts
  6. Specific FSK produces its specific facts.
  7. The Moral FSK produces moral facts.

Surely you cannot deny, the Economic FSK cannot produce geographical facts.
It is the same with each specific FSK, i.e. cannot produce facts other than that is specific to it's FSK.

Now your challenge is based on your specific 'Peter Holmes specified' FSK and its specific rules.
Since your FSK is not a moral FSK, it is obvious there is no way moral facts can be produced from your specified FSK.
You are asking for the impossible, i.e. to produce moral facts from the rules of your specific FSK.

What I have demonstrated is accordance with the principle,
6. A Specific FSK produces its specific facts.
I have produced Justified True Moral Facts from a specific Moral FSK - justifications already provided but you simply ignore them without any counter that is rational.

I and others have repeatedly refuted your argument. But here we go again.

1 What we call truth, facts and objectivity - in any descriptive context - are what we say they are, and can be nothing else. Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean. For example, the idea that truth is not what we say it is, but instead is a matter of intersubjective consensus, is a (recently newly fashionable) metaphysical delusion.

2 That what we call a fact exists only in a descriptive context - so there are physical, legal, economic facts, and so on - does not mean that every type of descriptive context can produce facts. It does not mean that there are or can be moral or aesthetic facts. That has to be demonstrated, as it does for all factual assertions.

3 Moral objectivists have to demonstrate the existence of moral facts - true factual assertions, whose truth-value is independent from anyone's opinion. Theirs is the burden of proof, unmet so far, to my knowledge.

Now, you can keep pretending that your 'Morality FSK' theory holds up - that I haven't demolished it countless times. And I expect you will. But it doesn't work, and nor does pretending that it does.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Objectivists have to demonstrate how a factual assertion can logically entail a moral assertion, so that to negate the moral assertion produces a logical contradiction.

I'm certain I'm gettin' this wrong, but...

Factual assertion: a man belongs to himself

...therefore...

Moral assertion: it's wrong to leash him

If we negate the moral assertion and say it's okay to leash a man does this not produce the logical contradiction?

A man belongs to himself but it's okay to leash him.

I'm guessin' the flaw in my construct lies with the belonging part (does a man really belong to himself? How do I demonstrate this?).

The falsification of a man belongs to himself, it seems to me, is finding a man who doesn't (not because he's leashed against his will but cuz it's his nature or essence to be property).

But then I'm dealin' with how do we differentiate between preference/opinion, which can shift, and essence, which is immutable, which leads to is there really an essence, an immutable component to a man/person?

Pete is right: there's one helluva burden for moral realists, a burden that stretches back and back to a fundamental that is itself unproven (talkin' about God).

I think there's indirect evidence of moral fact (smoke as evidence of an unseen fire), sumthin' I've referenced from time to time, but I haven't the will to ask folks to sniff the air (and I don't think goin' down that road would make a difference to the anti-realists...they'd sniff and say I don't smell nuthin').

So: carry on...

As I had stated, you have an intuitive feel for a moral fact in terms of "a man belongs to himself".
Why made it messy and difficult to explain.

Such intuition of moral fact of yours is reflected in the very popular controversy of 'slavery'.
The empirical fact [highly intuitive and testable] is
'no human would want to be enslaved by another'.
As such, the moral fact would be,
'no human shall enslave another' - especially with reference to chattel slavery.

Another basis of the above moral fact is,
every individual human has the right to basic human dignity, at least to have basic compatibilistic free-will and freedom, else they are not recognizing themselves as a human being.

This reflected in the progress humanity [compared to 10,000 years ago] had made on 'chattel' slavery, re the UN Convention of Slavery and beside that I believe at present every nation has some sort of laws that 'chattel slavery' is illegal.

Humanity is progressing to eliminate all form of slavery in alignment with the natural fact,
'no human would want to be enslaved by another'
toward the justification of the moral fact;
'no human shall enslave another'

In terms of morality, the above is to be achieved not through enforcement at all but through fool proof self-development programs by future generations*.
* not the present generation since those who are inclined to slavery at present are too neurally ingrained with such strong enslaving impulses.

[uwot]

I have always argued,

Scientific facts are also a matter of opinions, i.e. conjectures to start with.
It is only that such opinions/conjectures got 'polished' up to a high degree via justifications within the Scientific Framework and System, that they are accepted as facts representing their respective referent [state-of-affairs].

What anyone calls a 'fact' is up to them, but in my view a scientific fact is something like 'drop a brick and it falls to the ground'. It's a fact because that is what happens; it is the "opinions/conjectures" about why it happens which get polished, but regardless of how shiny, they remain hypotheses and theories. As far as ethics is concerned, it is a fact that if you chop someone's head off, they will die, whether you think that is good thing or not is a matter of opinion.

[Peter Holmes]

I think you and I agree that there are no moral facts analogous to 'drop a brick and it falls to the ground', but in the fuzzy logic that everyone uses in moral practice, "a man belongs to himself" isn't an objectionable starting point in my view, as long as it includes women and children.

I agree - it's a reasonable principle, along with others. But I also think a lion belongs to itself, and so does a whale - whatever that really means. Moral principles and their scope are matters of opinion. They're not facts.

Your thinking is too rhetorical and perverted.

If you use the term 'opinion' in such a rhetorical manner, then note this;

I have always argued,

Scientific facts are also a matter of opinions, i.e. conjectures to start with.
It is only that such opinions/conjectures got 'polished' up to a high degree via justifications within the Scientific Framework and System, that they are accepted as facts representing their respective referent [state-of-affairs].

If you insist,
"Moral principles and their scope are matters of opinion"
then, as with Scientific facts from opinions/conjectures,
Moral Facts are opinions/conjectures that got 'polished' up to a high degree via justifications within the Moral Framework and System, that they are accepted as Justified True Moral Facts representing their respective referent [state-of-affairs].

And the idea that they are facts - even fuzzy facts - is what leads to throwing homosexuals off tall buildings, or flying planes into those buildings - or shooting lions for fun, or slaughtering whales for profit.

How can the moral maxim with the moral FSK,
'no human ought to kill another'
logically and possibly leads to throwing homosexuals off tall buildings, or flying planes into those buildings??

This is why. People who think there are moral facts think their own moral opinions are facts. Big surprise.

So if you think homosexuality or is immoral or evil, or that the USA is the Great Satan, and you think those are facts, then you can justify to yourself killing homosexuals, or flying planes into US buidings. Or if you think other species are outside the scope of human moral concern - that that's a fact - then you can justify subjugating and abusing those species. Moral objectivism is fundamentally evil.

Your morality FSK argument is specious. It assumes that moral rightness and wrongness are 'objects of knowledge' - things that can be known, about which therefore facts - true factual assertions - can be produced. Your claim that, because all facts are contextual, therefore there can be contextual moral facts, is flat out false - how ever often you repeat it. It's fucking idiotic.

If any descriptive context can produce facts, then the 'astrology FSK' can produce facts. If you say it can't, because astrological claims lack empirical evidence, then you agree that not all descriptive contexts can produce facts. What we need is empirical evidence - whatever kinds of facts are involved.

So - what's the empirical evidence for the moral assertion that slavery is morally wrong? (You do know what empirical evidence is, right? No point citing moral principles in a 'framework of knowledge', or essentialist claims about human identity, or 'this is what peple think' - they're don't count as empirical evidence, as you know.)

Let's focus on that: what is the empirical evidence for the moral wrongness of slavery?