Is morality objective or subjective?

[Atla]

1 If an argument abductively concludes with an hypothesis, that hypothesis is the conclusion of the abductive argument. Don't be stupid.

You are the stupid one.
That is why I stated you are stuck in the linguistic perspective and taking things too linguistically.

Note in Philosophy, a conclusion is generally referred to a verified and justified fact upon a specific framework and system.

2 I don't 'conflate physics with morality', idiot. That's what you do when you claim that there are empirically verifiable moral facts, just as there are empirically verifiable physics facts. You just say there, but never show there are, because you can't. The claim is incoherent.

You are so ignorant despite my explanation.
Read my response to the point again.

3 Yes, morality deals with what we call good and evil, right and wrong, proper and improper in human behaviour. But the fact that we adopt moral standards by which to judge behaviour DOESN'T MEAN THOSE STANDARDS ARE FACTS. For example, if we think slavery is morally wrong, that doesn't make it a fact that slavery is morally wrong - just as, if we thought the opposite, that wouldn't make it a fact that slavery isn't morally wrong.

You got it wrong again.
They are only standards when verified and justified as moral facts within a MORAL FRAMEWORK and System.
You keep forgetting my point, facts are specific to their respective FSK/FSR.

4 The fundamental mistake is the claim that consistency with a goal of any kind has any moral implication. The claim 'action X is consistent with goal Y', which may be empirically verifiable, nonethless makes no moral judgement about either the goal or the action. So it isn't moral assertion at all - and so it can't express a moral fact. The only fact involved is consistency with or variation from a subjectively chosen goal. And that doesn't mean there can be moral facts, so that morality is objective. There aren't, and it isn't.

Again,
They are only moral facts when verified and justified within a MORAL FRAMEWORK and System.
You keep forgetting my point, facts are specific to their respective FSK/FSR.

5 What you have presented is insufficient to justify your claim that morality is objective. So the rational course is to withdraw the claim - or try to come up with credible evidence and sound argument. Certainly agnosticism with regard to moral objectivism is indicated.

I am not expecting you to agree with my points at all, since you are in such a kindergarten stage in terms of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

Btw, as rough guide, how many books and articles have you read on Morality and Ethics and what are the range of the moral topics involved?
Suggest you do more research on the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics to upgrade.

Btw, have you ever researched to find out the history of and how your moral stance 'no moral fact thus no moral objectivity' came about and its related philosophical views.
I bet you are ignorant of the above.

Objective facts are by definition not respective to any 'FSK/FSR'. That would be an oxymoron.

[Peter Holmes]

1 If an argument abductively concludes with an hypothesis, that hypothesis is the conclusion of the abductive argument. Don't be stupid.

You are the stupid one.
That is why I stated you are stuck in the linguistic perspective and taking things too linguistically.

Note in Philosophy, a conclusion is generally referred to a verified and justified fact upon a specific framework and system.

2 I don't 'conflate physics with morality', idiot. That's what you do when you claim that there are empirically verifiable moral facts, just as there are empirically verifiable physics facts. You just say there, but never show there are, because you can't. The claim is incoherent.

You are so ignorant despite my explanation.
Read my response to the point again.

3 Yes, morality deals with what we call good and evil, right and wrong, proper and improper in human behaviour. But the fact that we adopt moral standards by which to judge behaviour DOESN'T MEAN THOSE STANDARDS ARE FACTS. For example, if we think slavery is morally wrong, that doesn't make it a fact that slavery is morally wrong - just as, if we thought the opposite, that wouldn't make it a fact that slavery isn't morally wrong.

You got it wrong again.
They are only standards when verified and justified as moral facts within a MORAL FRAMEWORK and System.
You keep forgetting my point, facts are specific to their respective FSK/FSR.

4 The fundamental mistake is the claim that consistency with a goal of any kind has any moral implication. The claim 'action X is consistent with goal Y', which may be empirically verifiable, nonethless makes no moral judgement about either the goal or the action. So it isn't moral assertion at all - and so it can't express a moral fact. The only fact involved is consistency with or variation from a subjectively chosen goal. And that doesn't mean there can be moral facts, so that morality is objective. There aren't, and it isn't.

Again,
They are only moral facts when verified and justified within a MORAL FRAMEWORK and System.
You keep forgetting my point, facts are specific to their respective FSK/FSR.

5 What you have presented is insufficient to justify your claim that morality is objective. So the rational course is to withdraw the claim - or try to come up with credible evidence and sound argument. Certainly agnosticism with regard to moral objectivism is indicated.

I am not expecting you to agree with my points at all, since you are in such a kindergarten stage in terms of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

Btw, as rough guide, how many books and articles have you read on Morality and Ethics and what are the range of the moral topics involved?
Suggest you do more research on the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics to upgrade.

Btw, have you ever researched to find out the history of and how your moral stance 'no moral fact thus no moral objectivity' came about and its related philosophical views.
I bet you are ignorant of the above.

If a premise is false or not shown to be true, and if an argument is unsound or not shown to be sound - how many philosophers accept the premise and make the argument, and how many books and articles assert the premise and make the argument - these are utterly irrelevant. And to think otherwise is intellectually shameful - in my opinion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 If an argument abductively concludes with an hypothesis, that hypothesis is the conclusion of the abductive argument. Don't be stupid.

You are the stupid one.
That is why I stated you are stuck in the linguistic perspective and taking things too linguistically.

Note in Philosophy, a conclusion is generally referred to a verified and justified fact upon a specific framework and system.

2 I don't 'conflate physics with morality', idiot. That's what you do when you claim that there are empirically verifiable moral facts, just as there are empirically verifiable physics facts. You just say there, but never show there are, because you can't. The claim is incoherent.

You are so ignorant despite my explanation.
Read my response to the point again.

3 Yes, morality deals with what we call good and evil, right and wrong, proper and improper in human behaviour. But the fact that we adopt moral standards by which to judge behaviour DOESN'T MEAN THOSE STANDARDS ARE FACTS. For example, if we think slavery is morally wrong, that doesn't make it a fact that slavery is morally wrong - just as, if we thought the opposite, that wouldn't make it a fact that slavery isn't morally wrong.

You got it wrong again.
They are only standards when verified and justified as moral facts within a MORAL FRAMEWORK and System.
You keep forgetting my point, facts are specific to their respective FSK/FSR.

4 The fundamental mistake is the claim that consistency with a goal of any kind has any moral implication. The claim 'action X is consistent with goal Y', which may be empirically verifiable, nonethless makes no moral judgement about either the goal or the action. So it isn't moral assertion at all - and so it can't express a moral fact. The only fact involved is consistency with or variation from a subjectively chosen goal. And that doesn't mean there can be moral facts, so that morality is objective. There aren't, and it isn't.

Again,
They are only moral facts when verified and justified within a MORAL FRAMEWORK and System.
You keep forgetting my point, facts are specific to their respective FSK/FSR.

5 What you have presented is insufficient to justify your claim that morality is objective. So the rational course is to withdraw the claim - or try to come up with credible evidence and sound argument. Certainly agnosticism with regard to moral objectivism is indicated.

I am not expecting you to agree with my points at all, since you are in such a kindergarten stage in terms of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

Btw, as rough guide, how many books and articles have you read on Morality and Ethics and what are the range of the moral topics involved?
Suggest you do more research on the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics to upgrade.

Btw, have you ever researched to find out the history of and how your moral stance 'no moral fact thus no moral objectivity' came about and its related philosophical views.
I bet you are ignorant of the above.

If a premise is false or not shown to be true, and if an argument is unsound or not shown to be sound - how many philosophers accept the premise and make the argument, and how many books and articles assert the premise and make the argument - these are utterly irrelevant. And to think otherwise is intellectually shameful - in my opinion.

Again you are so ignorant and narrow minded.

What is fact is FSK specific.
What is a fact that is verified and justified within a specific FSR/FSK is not PRIMARILY a deductive-syllogistic argument but rather it is inferred from an inductive argument.
The best examples of inductive facts are scientific facts that are verified and justified within a scientific FSR/FSK.
Note science merely ASSUMED there is an an IDEAL objective reality to their scientific fact, which is impossible to be realizable.

What is verified and justified as fact via the scientific FSK is true, i.e. Justified True Beliefs.
There is no question of a wrong premise as in a typical syllogism in relation to the scientific FSK.
A claim is not a scientific fact if it does not comply with the core conditions of the scientific FSK.

A general deductive argument for Science which is not primary would be;

• 1. ALL scientific facts justified within a scientific FSR/FSK are true.
  2. Claim X is a scientific fact
  3. Therefore, Claim X is true

What is primary is the inductive processes within the specific scientific FSR/FSK.

The moral framework and system that generate moral facts is similar [not exactly] to the scientific framework.
Note, , the moral FSK do not assume there is an ideal objective reality out there which is like that of Plato's universal.
Thus whatever is a moral fact is conditionally true as conditioned to the requirements of the moral FSK.

Your narrow-minded and ignorance is confined to the conventional & linguistic perspective.

If you have read many more books and articles [in 1000s] that cover a wide range of philosophical topics, you would not be that ignorant [as least understand not necessary agree with] of the above points I mentioned.

[Atla]

Note science merely ASSUMED there is an an IDEAL objective reality to their scientific fact, which is impossible to be realizable.

We don't have to realize an objective reality with features that are basically indepenent from human opinion, it just is. You are conflating two different usages of 'objective', what we don't have is a 100% observer-independent reality that can be studied from the outside.

Learn some English and philosophy of science first, or you'll never make it.

The moral framework and system that generate moral facts is similar [not exactly] to the scientific framework.

Yes one is subjective (opinion-dependent), the other one is objective (opinion-independent).

[Peter Holmes]

You are the stupid one.
That is why I stated you are stuck in the linguistic perspective and taking things too linguistically.

Note in Philosophy, a conclusion is generally referred to a verified and justified fact upon a specific framework and system.


You are so ignorant despite my explanation.
Read my response to the point again.


You got it wrong again.
They are only standards when verified and justified as moral facts within a MORAL FRAMEWORK and System.
You keep forgetting my point, facts are specific to their respective FSK/FSR.


Again,
They are only moral facts when verified and justified within a MORAL FRAMEWORK and System.
You keep forgetting my point, facts are specific to their respective FSK/FSR.


I am not expecting you to agree with my points at all, since you are in such a kindergarten stage in terms of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

Btw, as rough guide, how many books and articles have you read on Morality and Ethics and what are the range of the moral topics involved?
Suggest you do more research on the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics to upgrade.

Btw, have you ever researched to find out the history of and how your moral stance 'no moral fact thus no moral objectivity' came about and its related philosophical views.
I bet you are ignorant of the above.

If a premise is false or not shown to be true, and if an argument is unsound or not shown to be sound - how many philosophers accept the premise and make the argument, and how many books and articles assert the premise and make the argument - these are utterly irrelevant. And to think otherwise is intellectually shameful - in my opinion.

Again you are so ignorant and narrow minded.

What is fact is FSK specific.
What is a fact that is verified and justified within a specific FSR/FSK is not PRIMARILY a deductive-syllogistic argument but rather it is inferred from an inductive argument.
The best examples of inductive facts are scientific facts that are verified and justified within a scientific FSR/FSK.
Note science merely ASSUMED there is an an IDEAL objective reality to their scientific fact, which is impossible to be realizable.

What is verified and justified as fact via the scientific FSK is true, i.e. Justified True Beliefs.
There is no question of a wrong premise as in a typical syllogism in relation to the scientific FSK.
A claim is not a scientific fact if it does not comply with the core conditions of the scientific FSK.

A general deductive argument for Science which is not primary would be;

• 1. ALL scientific facts justified within a scientific FSR/FSK are true.
  2. Claim X is a scientific fact
  3. Therefore, Claim X is true

What is primary is the inductive processes within the specific scientific FSR/FSK.

The moral framework and system that generate moral facts is similar [not exactly] to the scientific framework.
Note, , the moral FSK do not assume there is an ideal objective reality out there which is like that of Plato's universal.
Thus whatever is a moral fact is conditionally true as conditioned to the requirements of the moral FSK.

Your narrow-minded and ignorance is confined to the conventional & linguistic perspective.

If you have read many more books and articles [in 1000s] that cover a wide range of philosophical topics, you would not be that ignorant [as least understand not necessary agree with] of the above points I mentioned.

Pay attention. Deduction, induction and abduction are ways of reaching a conclusion from a premise or premises. And I'm saying a moral conclusion doesn't and can't follow from a factual premise by any method: deduction, induction or abduction - unless the conclusion is assumed as or in a premise, in which case the argument is a question-begging fallacy.

The fact that natural science conclusions are inductive but empirically testable is what makes them radically different from moral and aesthetic - non-factual - conclusions. How could a moral conclusion be inductive or abductive? Again, the question is incoherent.

[Belinda]

Peter Holmes wrote:

The fact that natural science conclusions are inductive but empirically testable is what makes them radically different from moral and aesthetic - non-factual - conclusions. How could a moral conclusion be inductive or abductive? Again, the question is incoherent.

That depends on who is talking.

Most people are not scientists and in any case hypotheses and predictions in experimental science are not like how most people make any sorts of decisions . People are too complex and unpredictable to be comparable to lab guinea pigs and beagles who are bred specifically for predictable traits or lack of specific traits.

Take, for instance moral tenets regarding incest. Somebody might feel and express disgust at a suggestion first cousins could marry. Somebody else might object the children of first cousins would be defective. Somebody else might say it is incestuous to sit on your mother in law's bed. Each of these opinions on incest is based on hygiene regarding breeding principles.

Sometimes another individual might say first cousins ought to marry because that would unite two important families or nations, or because that would keep property within the one family.

Therefore the morality of incest is traceable to either power relations or hygiene.
Power relations are investigated by methods such as participant observation, and hygiene is investigated either statistically or empirically or both.

I propose other moral tenets are also traceable to power relations or hygiene or both, with the proviso hygiene sometimes or often bows to power relations, EG Trump on the topic of coronavirus.

[Sculptor]

Peter Holmes wrote:

The fact that natural science conclusions are inductive but empirically testable is what makes them radically different from moral and aesthetic - non-factual - conclusions. How could a moral conclusion be inductive or abductive? Again, the question is incoherent.

That depends on who is talking.

Most people are not scientists and in any case hypotheses and predictions in experimental science are not like how most people make any sorts of decisions . People are too complex and unpredictable to be comparable to lab guinea pigs and beagles who are bred specifically for predictable traits or lack of specific traits.

Take, for instance moral tenets regarding incest. Somebody might feel and express disgust at a suggestion first cousins could marry. Somebody else might object the children of first cousins would be defective. Somebody else might say it is incestuous to sit on your mother in law's bed. Each of these opinions on incest is based on hygiene regarding breeding principles.

Taboos regarding incest are NOT empirically based. It is interesting topic to pick. A heavily science biased anthropology used to assume that incest had something to do with human mutation. But the big question arose in anthropological studied "How do societies with incest taboos, KNOW that incest leads to mutation?".
The fact is that they do not. The incest taboo has nothing what ever to do with hygiene. In fact there are very many good reasons why it is best to marry closer to home.
Human societies practice many different strategies to breeding; some are exogamous, others endogamous. Endogamous practices can be extreme, even favouring siblings.
These concerns are ECONOMIC, not health based.
"Inbreeding" is something of a modern concern since few societies had any knowledge of it. Even, where it would be perfectly obvious, say, amoungst the Pharoahs of the late dynasties had little or no concept that the problems that eventually witnessed were anything to do with it.
Inbreeding is mostly hamless. The massive varieties of domesticated animals are wholly the result of generations of inbreeeding, and all mammals, except humans seem to do it freely with no ill effects.
It only becomes really serious when it is practiced excessively and repeatedly, or when a recessively expressed problem such as haemophilia is passed on.
It is a common mistake to assume that proscriptions against incest are related to hygeine. Like most things with a moral interest - it is basically cultural.

Sometimes another individual might say first cousins ought to marry because that would unite two important families or nations, or because that would keep property within the one family.

Therefore the morality of incest is traceable to either power relations or hygiene.
Power relations are investigated by methods such as participant observation, and hygiene is investigated either statistically or empirically or both.

I propose other moral tenets are also traceable to power relations or hygiene or both, with the proviso hygiene sometimes or often bows to power relations, EG Trump on the topic of coronavirus.

So I think the point is well made that morals do not so easily submit to objective, inductive and emprical interests. IN fact they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If a premise is false or not shown to be true, and if an argument is unsound or not shown to be sound - how many philosophers accept the premise and make the argument, and how many books and articles assert the premise and make the argument - these are utterly irrelevant. And to think otherwise is intellectually shameful - in my opinion.

Again you are so ignorant and narrow minded.

What is fact is FSK specific.
What is a fact that is verified and justified within a specific FSR/FSK is not PRIMARILY a deductive-syllogistic argument but rather it is inferred from an inductive argument.
The best examples of inductive facts are scientific facts that are verified and justified within a scientific FSR/FSK.
Note science merely ASSUMED there is an an IDEAL objective reality to their scientific fact, which is impossible to be realizable.

What is verified and justified as fact via the scientific FSK is true, i.e. Justified True Beliefs.
There is no question of a wrong premise as in a typical syllogism in relation to the scientific FSK.
A claim is not a scientific fact if it does not comply with the core conditions of the scientific FSK.

A general deductive argument for Science which is not primary would be;

• 1. ALL scientific facts justified within a scientific FSR/FSK are true.
  2. Claim X is a scientific fact
  3. Therefore, Claim X is true

What is primary is the inductive processes within the specific scientific FSR/FSK.

The moral framework and system that generate moral facts is similar [not exactly] to the scientific framework.
Note, , the moral FSK do not assume there is an ideal objective reality out there which is like that of Plato's universal.
Thus whatever is a moral fact is conditionally true as conditioned to the requirements of the moral FSK.

Your narrow-minded and ignorance is confined to the conventional & linguistic perspective.

If you have read many more books and articles [in 1000s] that cover a wide range of philosophical topics, you would not be that ignorant [as least understand not necessary agree with] of the above points I mentioned.

Pay attention. Deduction, induction and abduction are ways of reaching a conclusion from a premise or premises. And I'm saying a moral conclusion doesn't and can't follow from a factual premise by any method: deduction, induction or abduction - unless the conclusion is assumed as or in a premise, in which case the argument is a question-begging fallacy.

The fact that natural science conclusions are inductive but empirically testable is what makes them radically different from moral and aesthetic - non-factual - conclusions. How could a moral conclusion be inductive or abductive? Again, the question is incoherent.

Nah you are ignorant again despite me explaining it a '1000' times.

A fact [factual confirmation] is specific to a FSR/FSK.
A scientific conclusion [factual confirmation of a predicted-fact] is verified and justified within a scientific FSK.
A scientific conclusion via its FSK is based on inductive reasoning.

A moral fact is similar to a scientific fact in its verification and justification processes based on induction.
A moral conclusion [factual confirmation of a predicted-fact] is verified and justified within a moral FSK.

Note this very critical point;
-those so-called moral assertions, moral judgments, moral statements, moral opinions and moral whatever made by individual[s] and groups - are NOT moral facts. They are not those moral facts as moral norms/standards which are subjected to being verified and justified within a moral FSK.

For example if a convicted murder-X confessed "I believe it is right to kill Mr. Y" or the father of Y condemned 'it is morally wrong that X had killed Mr. Y,' the above examples of beliefs of supposedly 'morally' related statements are not moral facts per se.
They above acts and beliefs are merely variances from the moral norm 'no human ought to kill humans.'

The difference between scientific facts and moral facts is purely and most significantly based on the different FSKs they are conditioned upon.

I believe your problem is you are so ignorant and dogmatic in thinking Science is merely confined to physical states and that you are ignorant of 'what is objectivity.'
To you, since moral elements are not physical states, therefore they cannot be facts which are objective.

Note, mental states within reality [all-there-is] which are not physical states of reality are also scientific facts when justified within its specific FSK. Note,

Affective science is the scientific study of emotion or affect. This includes the study of emotion elicitation, emotional experience and the recognition of emotions in others.
Of particular relevance are the nature of feeling, mood, emotionally-driven behaviour, decision-making, attention and self-regulation, as well as the underlying physiology and neuroscience of the emotions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affective_science#:

Thus, the existence of the mental states, i.e. the potentials are scientific-facts within the scientific and affective-science FSK.
The individuals' expression of emotional feelings are subjective emotional feelings, not the fact-of-emotions per se.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

For example the anger-emotion is a fact of Affective-Science as a mental state and potential.
The rage and anger expressed by individuals are subjective thus are not a fact of affective-science as verified and justified within its specific FSK.
Thus the fact of anger-emotion is the evolved mental-biological state [& potential] represented by its specific physiology and neuro-algorithm as verified within its specific FSK.

Similarly, a moral fact is also an evolved mental-biological state [& potential] represented by its specific physiology [in brain and body] and neuro-algorithm as verified and justified within a moral FSK.

Hope you understand the above and swallow back all your ignorant statements.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Peter Holmes wrote:

The fact that natural science conclusions are inductive but empirically testable is what makes them radically different from moral and aesthetic - non-factual - conclusions. How could a moral conclusion be inductive or abductive? Again, the question is incoherent.

That depends on who is talking.

Most people are not scientists and in any case hypotheses and predictions in experimental science are not like how most people make any sorts of decisions . People are too complex and unpredictable to be comparable to lab guinea pigs and beagles who are bred specifically for predictable traits or lack of specific traits.

Take, for instance moral tenets regarding incest. Somebody might feel and express disgust at a suggestion first cousins could marry. Somebody else might object the children of first cousins would be defective. Somebody else might say it is incestuous to sit on your mother in law's bed. Each of these opinions on incest is based on hygiene regarding breeding principles.

Taboos regarding incest are NOT empirically based. It is interesting topic to pick. A heavily science biased anthropology used to assume that incest had something to do with human mutation. But the big question arose in anthropological studied "How do societies with incest taboos, KNOW that incest leads to mutation?".
The fact is that they do not. The incest taboo has nothing what ever to do with hygiene. In fact there are very many good reasons why it is best to marry closer to home.
.........
.........
So I think the point is well made that morals do not so easily submit to objective, inductive and empirical interests. IN fact they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

As usual you are ignorant of the full impact of interbreeding due to your shallow and narrow range of knowledge re the relevant topic.

With your counter views above I presume you would not hesitate to marry your mother, your daughters, sisters, aunts, nieces, cousins, and other related kins, and produce children with them?

Note the related empirical studies:

Inbreeding avoidance

Contents
1 Mechanisms
1.1 Kin recognition
1.2 Post-copulatory inbreeding avoidance in mice
1.3 Human kin recognition
1.4 Inbreeding avoidance in plants
1.5 Dispersal
1.5.1 Sex-biased dispersal
1.5.1.1 Female dispersal
1.5.1.2 Male dispersal
1.5.2 Non-biased dispersal
1.6 Delayed maturation
1.7 Extra-pair copulations
2 Gaps
3 References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_avoidance

From the above and empirical studies done [there are many others] -anthropological, genetics, social sciences, psychology, etc., there are obvious net-negatives arising from interbreeding.
The 'ought-not-to' interbreed can be verified and justified as a moral fact, i.e. a moral norms as supported by empirical studies of its mental state represented by its specific biological-neural state.

True, there are exceptions to the above moral norms/facts example when the populations of a tribe was greatly due to wars, famine and other factors.
In other exception in modern times, there is a weakness in the interbreeding disgust function/control of those 'sinners.'
But the fact is >90% of the 7+ billion are naturally averse to interbreed to the existence of the inherent inherent avoidance function which is a moral fact upon a moral FSK

The ought-not-to interbreed moral fact is not so obvious and more complex to explain in relation to morality. So it would not be credible to bank on this point at present.

The more obvious example of a moral fact is the inherent moral and biological mental state of 'no human ought to kill humans' in addition to the moral fact on chattel slavery.
I have already demonstrated there is such an inherent moral fact as verified and justified within the moral FSK.
Therefore moral facts [via moral FSK] exist objectively [as defined].

[Sculptor]

Peter Holmes wrote:



That depends on who is talking.

Most people are not scientists and in any case hypotheses and predictions in experimental science are not like how most people make any sorts of decisions . People are too complex and unpredictable to be comparable to lab guinea pigs and beagles who are bred specifically for predictable traits or lack of specific traits.

Take, for instance moral tenets regarding incest. Somebody might feel and express disgust at a suggestion first cousins could marry. Somebody else might object the children of first cousins would be defective. Somebody else might say it is incestuous to sit on your mother in law's bed. Each of these opinions on incest is based on hygiene regarding breeding principles.

Taboos regarding incest are NOT empirically based. It is interesting topic to pick. A heavily science biased anthropology used to assume that incest had something to do with human mutation. But the big question arose in anthropological studied "How do societies with incest taboos, KNOW that incest leads to mutation?".
The fact is that they do not. The incest taboo has nothing what ever to do with hygiene. In fact there are very many good reasons why it is best to marry closer to home.
.........
.........
So I think the point is well made that morals do not so easily submit to objective, inductive and empirical interests. IN fact they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

As usual you are ignorant of the full impact of interbreeding due to your shallow and narrow range of knowledge re the relevant topic.

With your counter views above I presume you would not hesitate to marry your mother, your daughters, sisters, aunts, nieces, cousins, and other related kins, and produce children with them?

Note the related empirical studies:

Inbreeding avoidance

Contents
1 Mechanisms
1.1 Kin recognition
1.2 Post-copulatory inbreeding avoidance in mice
1.3 Human kin recognition
1.4 Inbreeding avoidance in plants
1.5 Dispersal
1.5.1 Sex-biased dispersal
1.5.1.1 Female dispersal
1.5.1.2 Male dispersal
1.5.2 Non-biased dispersal
1.6 Delayed maturation
1.7 Extra-pair copulations
2 Gaps
3 References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_avoidance

From the above and empirical studies done [there are many others] -anthropological, genetics, social sciences, psychology, etc., there are obvious net-negatives arising from interbreeding.
The 'ought-not-to' interbreed can be verified and justified as a moral fact, i.e. a moral norms as supported by empirical studies of its mental state represented by its specific biological-neural state.

True, there are exceptions to the above moral norms/facts example when the populations of a tribe was greatly due to wars, famine and other factors.
In other exception in modern times, there is a weakness in the interbreeding disgust function/control of those 'sinners.'
But the fact is >90% of the 7+ billion are naturally averse to interbreed to the existence of the inherent inherent avoidance function which is a moral fact upon a moral FSK

The ought-not-to interbreed moral fact is not so obvious and more complex to explain in relation to morality. So it would not be credible to bank on this point at present.

The more obvious example of a moral fact is the inherent moral and biological mental state of 'no human ought to kill humans' in addition to the moral fact on chattel slavery.
I have already demonstrated there is such an inherent moral fact as verified and justified within the moral FSK.
Therefore moral facts [via moral FSK] exist objectively [as defined].

As per usual you have completely missed the point.
You might want to consider that ALL early societies and ALL pre-science societies had no access to this sort of information.
If you were not so dull and stupid you COULD HAVE used what I said to back up a point about underlying innate tendancies to moral action. But you are not bright enough.

[Skepdick]

As per usual you have completely missed the point.
You might want to consider that ALL early societies and ALL pre-science societies had no access to this sort of information.

No shit, Sherlock. Acquiring information (a.k.a learning) takes time.

In the same way future societies will know more than we know today.

In exactly the same way some of the stuff that is acceptable to us today will be seen as barbaric through the eyes of future generations.

You can't do better if you don't know better.

[Peter Holmes]

Again you are so ignorant and narrow minded.

What is fact is FSK specific.
What is a fact that is verified and justified within a specific FSR/FSK is not PRIMARILY a deductive-syllogistic argument but rather it is inferred from an inductive argument.
The best examples of inductive facts are scientific facts that are verified and justified within a scientific FSR/FSK.
Note science merely ASSUMED there is an an IDEAL objective reality to their scientific fact, which is impossible to be realizable.

What is verified and justified as fact via the scientific FSK is true, i.e. Justified True Beliefs.
There is no question of a wrong premise as in a typical syllogism in relation to the scientific FSK.
A claim is not a scientific fact if it does not comply with the core conditions of the scientific FSK.

A general deductive argument for Science which is not primary would be;

• 1. ALL scientific facts justified within a scientific FSR/FSK are true.
  2. Claim X is a scientific fact
  3. Therefore, Claim X is true

What is primary is the inductive processes within the specific scientific FSR/FSK.

The moral framework and system that generate moral facts is similar [not exactly] to the scientific framework.
Note, , the moral FSK do not assume there is an ideal objective reality out there which is like that of Plato's universal.
Thus whatever is a moral fact is conditionally true as conditioned to the requirements of the moral FSK.

Your narrow-minded and ignorance is confined to the conventional & linguistic perspective.

If you have read many more books and articles [in 1000s] that cover a wide range of philosophical topics, you would not be that ignorant [as least understand not necessary agree with] of the above points I mentioned.

Pay attention. Deduction, induction and abduction are ways of reaching a conclusion from a premise or premises. And I'm saying a moral conclusion doesn't and can't follow from a factual premise by any method: deduction, induction or abduction - unless the conclusion is assumed as or in a premise, in which case the argument is a question-begging fallacy.

The fact that natural science conclusions are inductive but empirically testable is what makes them radically different from moral and aesthetic - non-factual - conclusions. How could a moral conclusion be inductive or abductive? Again, the question is incoherent.

Nah you are ignorant again despite me explaining it a '1000' times.

A fact [factual confirmation] is specific to a FSR/FSK.
A scientific conclusion [factual confirmation of a predicted-fact] is verified and justified within a scientific FSK.
A scientific conclusion via its FSK is based on inductive reasoning.

A moral fact is similar to a scientific fact in its verification and justification processes based on induction.
A moral conclusion [factual confirmation of a predicted-fact] is verified and justified within a moral FSK.

Note this very critical point;
-those so-called moral assertions, moral judgments, moral statements, moral opinions and moral whatever made by individual[s] and groups - are NOT moral facts. They are not those moral facts as moral norms/standards which are subjected to being verified and justified within a moral FSK.

For example if a convicted murder-X confessed "I believe it is right to kill Mr. Y" or the father of Y condemned 'it is morally wrong that X had killed Mr. Y,' the above examples of beliefs of supposedly 'morally' related statements are not moral facts per se.
They above acts and beliefs are merely variances from the moral norm 'no human ought to kill humans.'

The difference between scientific facts and moral facts is purely and most significantly based on the different FSKs they are conditioned upon.

I believe your problem is you are so ignorant and dogmatic in thinking Science is merely confined to physical states and that you are ignorant of 'what is objectivity.'
To you, since moral elements are not physical states, therefore they cannot be facts which are objective.

Note, mental states within reality [all-there-is] which are not physical states of reality are also scientific facts when justified within its specific FSK. Note,

Affective science is the scientific study of emotion or affect. This includes the study of emotion elicitation, emotional experience and the recognition of emotions in others.
Of particular relevance are the nature of feeling, mood, emotionally-driven behaviour, decision-making, attention and self-regulation, as well as the underlying physiology and neuroscience of the emotions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affective_science#:

Thus, the existence of the mental states, i.e. the potentials are scientific-facts within the scientific and affective-science FSK.
The individuals' expression of emotional feelings are subjective emotional feelings, not the fact-of-emotions per se.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

For example the anger-emotion is a fact of Affective-Science as a mental state and potential.
The rage and anger expressed by individuals are subjective thus are not a fact of affective-science as verified and justified within its specific FSK.
Thus the fact of anger-emotion is the evolved mental-biological state [& potential] represented by its specific physiology and neuro-algorithm as verified within its specific FSK.

Similarly, a moral fact is also an evolved mental-biological state [& potential] represented by its specific physiology [in brain and body] and neuro-algorithm as verified and justified within a moral FSK.

Hope you understand the above and swallow back all your ignorant statements.

You say there is 'the moral norm 'no human ought to kill humans', which you call a fact independent from opinion. But the choice to adopt a norm is nothing other than a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective. That we're supposedly 'programmed' not to kill humans doesn't mean it's therefore morally wrong to kill humans; just as, if we were 'programmed' to kill humans, that wouldn't mean it's therefore not morally wrong to kill humans.

A fact about our behavioural 'programming' has no moral implication, deductively, inductively or abductively. And if 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' just means 'ought-not-to-deviate-from-'programming' ', then this has nothing to do with morality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nah you are ignorant again despite me explaining it a '1000' times.

A fact [factual confirmation] is specific to a FSR/FSK.
A scientific conclusion [factual confirmation of a predicted-fact] is verified and justified within a scientific FSK.
A scientific conclusion via its FSK is based on inductive reasoning.

A moral fact is similar to a scientific fact in its verification and justification processes based on induction.
A moral conclusion [factual confirmation of a predicted-fact] is verified and justified within a moral FSK.

Note this very critical point;
-those so-called moral assertions, moral judgments, moral statements, moral opinions and moral whatever made by individual[s] and groups - are NOT moral facts. They are not those moral facts as moral norms/standards which are subjected to being verified and justified within a moral FSK.

For example if a convicted murder-X confessed "I believe it is right to kill Mr. Y" or the father of Y condemned 'it is morally wrong that X had killed Mr. Y,' the above examples of beliefs of supposedly 'morally' related statements are not moral facts per se.
They above acts and beliefs are merely variances from the moral norm 'no human ought to kill humans.'

The difference between scientific facts and moral facts is purely and most significantly based on the different FSKs they are conditioned upon.

I believe your problem is you are so ignorant and dogmatic in thinking Science is merely confined to physical states and that you are ignorant of 'what is objectivity.'
To you, since moral elements are not physical states, therefore they cannot be facts which are objective.

Note, mental states within reality [all-there-is] which are not physical states of reality are also scientific facts when justified within its specific FSK. Note,

Affective science is the scientific study of emotion or affect. This includes the study of emotion elicitation, emotional experience and the recognition of emotions in others.
Of particular relevance are the nature of feeling, mood, emotionally-driven behaviour, decision-making, attention and self-regulation, as well as the underlying physiology and neuroscience of the emotions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affective_science#:

Thus, the existence of the mental states, i.e. the potentials are scientific-facts within the scientific and affective-science FSK.
The individuals' expression of emotional feelings are subjective emotional feelings, not the fact-of-emotions per se.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

For example the anger-emotion is a fact of Affective-Science as a mental state and potential.
The rage and anger expressed by individuals are subjective thus are not a fact of affective-science as verified and justified within its specific FSK.
Thus the fact of anger-emotion is the evolved mental-biological state [& potential] represented by its specific physiology and neuro-algorithm as verified within its specific FSK.

Similarly, a moral fact is also an evolved mental-biological state [& potential] represented by its specific physiology [in brain and body] and neuro-algorithm as verified and justified within a moral FSK.

Hope you understand the above and swallow back all your ignorant statements.

You say there is 'the moral norm 'no human ought to kill humans', which you call a fact independent from opinion. But the choice to adopt a norm is nothing other than a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective. That we're supposedly 'programmed' not to kill humans doesn't mean it's therefore morally wrong to kill humans; just as, if we were 'programmed' to kill humans, that wouldn't mean it's therefore not morally wrong to kill humans.

A fact about our behavioural 'programming' has no moral implication, deductively, inductively or abductively. And if 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' just means 'ought-not-to-deviate-from-'programming' ', then this has nothing to do with morality.

You are so dogmatic and bigoted that you ignored and refused to note the above points I made. You offered no sound counter to the points I made above. Seem they are beyond your ken.

Repeat again, the "1000 & 1"th times as above.

A fact [factual confirmation] is specific to a FSR/FSK.
A scientific conclusion [factual confirmation of a predicted-fact] is verified and justified within a scientific FSK.
A scientific conclusion via its FSK is based on inductive reasoning.

A moral fact is similar to a scientific fact in its verification and justification processes based on induction.
A moral conclusion [factual confirmation of a predicted-fact] is verified and justified within a moral FSK.

The establishment of objective moral fact as moral norms [objectives] within a FSK is not an opinion but as an essential via collective consensus thus independent of individuals' opinion and beliefs thus objective.
What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

Note the case of legal facts and the legislature.
Where does the legal standards, i.e. the laws come from.
Are they opinions?
At the most legal standards as laws are agreed upon by a group of people in a parliament or by a dictator.

Moral norms are based on moral facts justified via a moral framework and system, thus more credible than the norms of many other FSKs.

[Peter Holmes]

Nah you are ignorant again despite me explaining it a '1000' times.

A fact [factual confirmation] is specific to a FSR/FSK.
A scientific conclusion [factual confirmation of a predicted-fact] is verified and justified within a scientific FSK.
A scientific conclusion via its FSK is based on inductive reasoning.

A moral fact is similar to a scientific fact in its verification and justification processes based on induction.
A moral conclusion [factual confirmation of a predicted-fact] is verified and justified within a moral FSK.

Note this very critical point;
-those so-called moral assertions, moral judgments, moral statements, moral opinions and moral whatever made by individual[s] and groups - are NOT moral facts. They are not those moral facts as moral norms/standards which are subjected to being verified and justified within a moral FSK.

For example if a convicted murder-X confessed "I believe it is right to kill Mr. Y" or the father of Y condemned 'it is morally wrong that X had killed Mr. Y,' the above examples of beliefs of supposedly 'morally' related statements are not moral facts per se.
They above acts and beliefs are merely variances from the moral norm 'no human ought to kill humans.'

The difference between scientific facts and moral facts is purely and most significantly based on the different FSKs they are conditioned upon.

I believe your problem is you are so ignorant and dogmatic in thinking Science is merely confined to physical states and that you are ignorant of 'what is objectivity.'
To you, since moral elements are not physical states, therefore they cannot be facts which are objective.

Note, mental states within reality [all-there-is] which are not physical states of reality are also scientific facts when justified within its specific FSK. Note,



Thus, the existence of the mental states, i.e. the potentials are scientific-facts within the scientific and affective-science FSK.
The individuals' expression of emotional feelings are subjective emotional feelings, not the fact-of-emotions per se.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

For example the anger-emotion is a fact of Affective-Science as a mental state and potential.
The rage and anger expressed by individuals are subjective thus are not a fact of affective-science as verified and justified within its specific FSK.
Thus the fact of anger-emotion is the evolved mental-biological state [& potential] represented by its specific physiology and neuro-algorithm as verified within its specific FSK.

Similarly, a moral fact is also an evolved mental-biological state [& potential] represented by its specific physiology [in brain and body] and neuro-algorithm as verified and justified within a moral FSK.

Hope you understand the above and swallow back all your ignorant statements.

You say there is 'the moral norm 'no human ought to kill humans', which you call a fact independent from opinion. But the choice to adopt a norm is nothing other than a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective. That we're supposedly 'programmed' not to kill humans doesn't mean it's therefore morally wrong to kill humans; just as, if we were 'programmed' to kill humans, that wouldn't mean it's therefore not morally wrong to kill humans.

A fact about our behavioural 'programming' has no moral implication, deductively, inductively or abductively. And if 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' just means 'ought-not-to-deviate-from-'programming' ', then this has nothing to do with morality.

You are so dogmatic and bigoted that you ignored and refused to note the above points I made. You offered no sound counter to the points I made above. Seem they are beyond your ken.

Repeat again, the "1000 & 1"th times as above.

A fact [factual confirmation] is specific to a FSR/FSK.
A scientific conclusion [factual confirmation of a predicted-fact] is verified and justified within a scientific FSK.
A scientific conclusion via its FSK is based on inductive reasoning.

A moral fact is similar to a scientific fact in its verification and justification processes based on induction.
A moral conclusion [factual confirmation of a predicted-fact] is verified and justified within a moral FSK.

The establishment of objective moral fact as moral norms [objectives] within a FSK is not an opinion but as an essential via collective consensus thus independent of individuals' opinion and beliefs thus objective.
What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

Note the case of legal facts and the legislature.
Where does the legal standards, i.e. the laws come from.
Are they opinions?
At the most legal standards as laws are agreed upon by a group of people in a parliament or by a dictator.

Moral norms are based on moral facts justified via a moral framework and system, thus more credible than the norms of many other FSKs.

Think about it. The decision to adopt a moral standard - for any reason whatsoever - is subjective. And that decision doesn't make the standard objective. It's really very simple. For example, if we adopt 'do no harm' as a rule, that doesn't mean 'do no harm' is some fact about reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

..
Moral norms are based on moral facts justified via a moral framework and system, thus more credible than the norms of many other FSKs.

Think about it. The decision to adopt a moral standard - for any reason whatsoever - is subjective. And that decision doesn't make the standard objective. It's really very simple. For example, if we adopt 'do no harm' as a rule, that doesn't mean 'do no harm' is some fact about reality.

You are so blind to the point I made above?

Whatever norms or standards that are accepted within a moral FSK are already moral facts.
I stated above and before, "moral facts justified via a moral framework and system" thus are objective, and note,
What is Philosophical Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
Since the moral fact is verified and justified within a moral FSK as objective, when adopted as a moral standard, it is still objective.

The above is the general principle.

If you specifically adopt 'do no harm' as a moral standard [rule], then you must first verified and justified 'do no harm' as a moral fact within a moral framework and system thus as objective.