All Moral State-of-affairs are Facts

[Skepdick]

Well with enough knowledge of the principles of philosophic discussion, and enough determination, I'm sure one could render any question meaningless.

Which is why I am going exactly the other way.

A well-formulated yes/no question is the most precise/meaningful thing you can synthesise in language.

Arriving at an answer yields information/knowledge.

[Harbal]

I am being charitable AND intellectually honest by telling you that I don't.

Don't you even have a theory of what I probably meant?

[Skepdick]

Don't you even have a theory of what I probably meant?

I do! But like I said - it's not good enough.

It's based on very incomplete information and a fuckton of assumptions.

So, I am perfectly happy to blurt out an answer, but you'll have no way of telling whether I answered your question as you actually meant it; or as I actually misunderstood it.

Semantics are literally getting in our way.

"Human communications usually fail, except by accident" --Osmo Antero Wiio

[Harbal]

Don't you even have a theory of what I probably meant?

I do! But like I said - it's not good enough.

It's based on very incomplete information and a fuckton of assumptions.

So, I am perfectly happy to blurt out an answer, but you'll have no way of telling whether I answered your question as you actually meant it; or as I actually misunderstood it.

Semantics are literally getting in our way.

Okay, here is the question again: 'If I were to say, "it is wrong to kill another human being", am I stating a fact?'

What if I change it to, "If I were to say, "it is morally wrong to kill another human being for no other reason than I felt like killing him at the time", am I stating a fact?

If that is still "not good enough", perhaps you could indicate which parts of it need further clarification. And I apologise if there are any semantic obstacles in my previous sentence, please ignore them.

[Skepdick]

Okay, here is the question again: 'If I were to say, "it is wrong to kill another human being", am I stating a fact?'

IF you are of the opinion that "wrongness" is a thing that exists, then yes - it's a fact.
IF you are of the opinion that "wrongness" does not exist, then no - it's not a fact.

You are stating a factual relationship between the mental state/emotion/intuition/opinion and state of affairs.

What if I change it to, "If I were to say, "it is morally wrong to kill another human being for no other reason than I felt like killing him at the time", am I stating a fact?

The point clearly went over your head. I can re-state the above assertion as a yes/no question also.

Is it morally wrong to kill another human being for no other reason than I felt like killing him at the time?
Because you are asserting it, you are automatically saying YES.

To you the matter is decidable. Whether you want to call your decision "opinion" or "fact" is immaterial in my worldview.

If that is still "not good enough", perhaps you could indicate which parts of it need further clarification.

What requires clarification is why you are asking ME to answer YOUR meaningful questions.

[Harbal]

What requires clarification is why you are asking ME to answer YOUR meaningful questions.

Actually it is Veritas Aequitas's answer I am interested in, although I suspect he will have as much difficulty as you in answering it.

[Skepdick]

Actually it is Veritas Aequitas's answer I am interested in, although I suspect he will have as much difficulty as you in answering it.

I am not having any difficult answering it. The wrongness of murder is an objective fact. Given my conception of "wrongness" and my conception of "facts".

What I am having trouble with is making you comprehend my original comment.

There exists a semantic/conception for "facts" and "wrongness" for which the answer is "yes".

I suspect, in fact - it's not possible to make you comprehend. It seems you lack the foundational knowledge necessary for comprehension.

[Harbal]

I am not having any difficult answering it. I am having trouble making you comprehend the answer.

It looks like a matter of perspective. From where I'm standing, I am having difficulty in getting you to answer the question, and you are having difficulty in comprehending it, or at least having difficulty in acknowledging that you comprehend it.

As it is really VA's answer I am interested in, I suggest we suspend our conversation, and wait for him to come and avoid answering the question for himself.

[Skepdick]

It looks like a matter of perspective. From where I'm standing, I am having difficulty in getting you to answer the question, and you are having difficulty in comprehending it, or at least having difficulty in acknowledging that you comprehend it.

The question you seem to be asking was answered before you even asked it.

There exists a semantic/conception for "facts" and "wrongness" for which the answer is "yes".

This amounts to the English question: Is the wrongness of murder a fact?
And the English answer: Yes.

That you continue asking is evidence of non-comprehension on your part.

[Harbal]

I suspect, in fact - it's not possible to make you comprehend. It seems you lack the foundational knowledge necessary for comprehension.

That could be the case, or it could be that I didn't take any notice of whatever it is that you are referring to, because I wasn't interested in it.

[Skepdick]

That could be the case, or it could be that I didn't take any notice of whatever it is that you are referring to, because I wasn't interested in it.

You have strange ways of showing disinterest.

[Harbal]

Is the wrongness of murder a fact?
And the English answer: Yes.

Legally wrong, morally wrong, or both?

[Skepdick]

Legally wrong, morally wrong, or both?

What's the difference? Isn't the law our approximate/probable codification of morality?

Isn't it good enough?

[Harbal]

You have strange ways of showing disinterest.

So how do you show disinterest in something? By paying extra attention to it, perhaps?

[Skepdick]

So how do you show disinterest in something? By paying extra attention to it, perhaps?

Ignoring it doesn't work for you?