Objectivity and Morality

[FlashDangerpants]

Shit-proper doesn't need wipe, it goes down trouser leg!

Shit-proper stays in underwear.

Shit-improper runs down leg.

Wonder if tampons work for diarrhea.

According to the Facebook and MySpace of Knowledge-proper, underwear-proper must never imprison the poo-proper.

[Sculptor]

The heathen is ignorant of shit-proper!

You might need to wipe!

Shit-proper doesn't need wipe, it goes down trouser leg!

Shite proper needs the Starship Enterprise. It get's rid of the Kinkons.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How do we test and falsify the assertion 'killing humans is morally wrong' - or the assertion 'killing humans is not morally wrong'? - without appealing to another moral assertion?

The moral rightness or wrongness of killing humans isn't a feature of reality like those that the natural sciences deal with. So there's no moral FSK comparable to the natural science FSKs. The moral FSK is your question-begging invention.

First we need to establish a very robust Moral System and Framework of Reality [FSR]. [FSR more specific than a still relevant FSK]
I will not go into the details but to state the Moral FSR will be in-general is similar to the scientific FSK or FSR.

In certain finer aspects the moral FSR is more robust [propped with rigoristic and sound philosophical reasoning] than the scientific one which at its very best merely produce 'polished conjectures' [note "conjectures"] of an assumed-objective-reality.

As I had stated, what is morally 'wrong' [btw, I don't prefer this term but I'll go along with it] within the Moral FSR is when what is actual do not align with the right standards based on justified moral facts.

Basically,
What is the moral standard is morally right.
The moral standard is based on justified moral fact, e.g.
the moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' adopted from the biological fact, all humans and within inherent human nature, want to survive and not to die [till the inevitable] & be killed.
Thus logically, if the actual events do not conform with the standard that is morally right, then the the actual, i.e. 'humans killing of humans' is morally wrong.

I have already demonstrated the physical existence of the moral fact, 'no human ought to kill humans' via neuroscience, i.e. neuro-anatomy in term of a set of neural algorithm that maintain such a psychological state. There are many ways to confirm the above.

The repeatable testing based on empirical evidence and confirming of the results like science is based on induction.

The thesis is,
'no normal humans under normal circumstances will have the urge to kill humans.'
It is inductively true based on evidences, all 'normal' and the majority of humans do not go about killing humans.
The idea of humans killing humans' is one of the most abhorrence [from history and whatever is written about it] and judging from the strongest intents and steps taken to prevent humans from killing humans.
There are so many paths and approaches to test the above thesis for the same conclusion of the moral fact, no human ought to kill humans' within a moral FSR. [note FSR or FSK].

Physical wise, the existence of psychopaths are one of the evidence that the neural algorithm has failed, thus the malignant psychopaths has strong tendencies to kill humans for no good reasons other than a failure of the 'not to kill humans' inhibitors.
Why? The explanations are complex but available.

Again there are many examples and tests that can be carried out to verify and test the existence of the inherent neural algorithm of the 'not to kill humans' inhibitors

In other circumstances where humans had killed humans, there is then a failure [in various degrees] of the 'not to kill humans' inhibitors within the algorithm.
Genocides is evidence of a failure of high degree whilst wars and capital punishments at the other of the continuum of lower degree of weakness.

In the above I have provided lead evidences to support my thesis, i.e. there are moral facts conditioned upon a Moral Framework and System of Reality [knowledge] which is sufficient justification.
There are many other processes to verify and justify my thesis which I don't want to waste time on. If you are not ignorant, you will naturally come across them all over the internet.

Btw, note your inherent bias to ignore or is blind to my concept of the Moral Framework and System. So this time keep that moral FSR in your head when countering my views.

[Skepdick]

How do we test and falsify the assertion 'killing humans is morally wrong' - or the assertion 'killing humans is not morally wrong'?

How do you generally test for "wrongness", Peter?

Because if you don't have such a test, then how do you know if ANYTHING is "wrong" ?