Is morality objective or subjective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You seem confused. Let me help. A word, such as what we confusingly call an abstract noun, is a real thing that actually exists as a sound, marks on paper or screen, a signing gesture, and so on. Abstract nouns exist physically, as do brains.

The trouble is we use nouns to name things, so we fool ourselves into thinking that abstract nouns must also be the names of things - thing which must therefore exist somewhere, somehow, and which can therefore be described. Hence metaphysical theories of knowledge, truth, goodness, beauty, identity, justice, causation, and so on - insert the abstract noun of choice - hence philosophical delusion over at least two and a half millennia.

And the word 'mind' is one of those abstract nouns. Hence the absurdity of the so-called mind-body problem, the claim that consciousness can't arise from matter (a common apologetic canard supposedly justifying substance-dualism and supernaturalism) - and hence fatuous gotcha questions like 'well, if there are no abstract things, why are you talking about moral rightness and wrongness?'

We've always used metaphors to talk about our brain activity, and the orchestra/symphony comparison is one example - though notice that the symphony is a real, physical thing - not some mystical, abstract emanation. The expression 'emergent property' is another and very common metaphor: what we call 'mind' is a property of the brain. And metaphors have their uses - but they can easily lead us astray, as the history of our talk about the supposed abstract or non-physical thing we call the mind demonstrates.

Don't assume that I am that stupid with semantics and linguistic.

A "noun" in one perspective is a word on paper or spoken.
A noun in reality is a thing that has a physical referent and exists as real empirically.
E.g. the word 'apple' denote a real physical solid apple as referent out there.

1. An abstract noun is also a word on paper or spoken.
2. Some abstract nouns do not have a physical referent but exists empirically, e.g. red.
3. Some abstract nouns are things that are non-physical but supervene on a physical referent, e.g. the human mind, a team, a symphony orchestra and the likes.
4. Some abstract nouns do not have a physical referent and do exist as real, e.g. ghost and other metaphysical entities.

Within physicalism, 3 would be considered to be 'physical' rather than non-physical [not solid].

To insist terms like 'mind' 'symphony orchestra' a team and the likes are metaphors is one of the most stupid assertion I have come across.
In that case, a "table" is also a metaphor that is equivalent to a cluster of C, H, O, N, P, K, molecules.
Actually to be more refine most aspect of reality can be related metaphorically, but generally we do not resort to such analysis conventionally as in this case with 'mind' and the likes.

The critical point here is whatever the term, what is critical on what is claimed, e.g. mind, symphony, team, and the likes must be verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
Things like mind, symphony, team, and the likes occupy space and time and have cause and effect elements, thus can be verified, justified and tested.

A thing or fact called a 'team' comprising of individual humans can produce synergy that the humans as individuals cannot.
It is the same with that thing called 'mind' which can produce synergy the individual neurons and chemical cannot.

Do you understand what is synergy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy
Synergy is an interaction or cooperation giving rise to a whole that is greater than the simple sum of its parts.

As I had stated your thinking is too narrow, shallow, ignorant and dogmatic as inherited from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists [defunct] and the classical analytic philosophers.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your syllogism is not valid.
Logically it should be,

P1 Morality is about promoting good (as defined) and avoiding evil (as defined).
P2 The killing of humans is evil (as defined).
C Therefore, killing of humans is not good, i.e. not compatible with morality.

What counts as good and evil is a matter of opinion, and defining (describing) them doesn't change that fact. So, for that reason alone, this argument is uselessly question-begging. There's nothing objective here.

What is fact i.e. objective is not based primarily on defining and describing it.

What is evil is objective as verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK. I have done that a "1000" times in my previous posts.
This is the similar to what is poisonous to humans [objectively] is verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK, i.e. chemistry and biology.

Where is the question-begging?

Here it is.

1 Fact: all facts exist within a descriptive context (an FSK) - for example, biological, chemical, legal, geological, and so on.

2 Conclusion: Therefore moral facts exist within a moral descriptive context (a moral FSK).

#2 doesn't follow from #1. That facts exist within a descriptive context doesn't mean that any descriptive context contains or can produce facts. For example, there are no astrological or alchemical facts.

I did not expect you to be SO stupid [lack intelligence] in this case.
Here is how you are deceptive.
You stated;
1 Fact: all facts exist within a descriptive context (an FSK) - for example, biological, chemical, legal, geological, and so on.

Nope! it should be;

• 1 Fact: what are facts are that which are verified and justified empirically & philosophically with a credible FSK - for example, biological, chemical, legal, geological, and so on.
  
  2 Conclusion: Therefore biological, chemical, legal, geological, facts exists and conditioned upon a credible FSK.
  
  3. Moral facts are facts that are verified and justified empirically & philosophically with a credible moral FSK

Note the extent you try to cheat to get your points through by omitting the critical
"what are facts are that which are verified and justified empirically & philosophically with a credible FSK"

On the other hand, you are the one who is begging the question with your claim of 'what is fact' by presuming facts exist before verifying and justifying they exists.

False. I think any factual assertion needs empirical verification - which means the existence of facts must be demonstrable. You beg the question by merely claiming that there is a moral 'FSK', so that there are moral facts.

I don't beg the question like you.
I start with empirical evidences, verify and justify them and end up with an empirical based conclusion of empirically justified true moral facts.

Nope. You're deluded. You haven't demonstrated the existence of one so-called moral fact. Your go-to example - no human ought to kill humans - is demonstrably not a fact, but rather the expression of a moral opinion.

I have demonstrated [a 1000 times] the moral fact, i.e.
'no human ought to kill humans'
as an inherent ought_ness within the constitution of all humans,
and with a moral framework and system of reality and knowledge.

Your skull and 'silo' is so thick and tightly enclosed, as expected, there is no way you will ever understand [not necessary agree with] the above.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The philosophy of mind can be nothing more than an explanation of how we use, or could use, the word 'mind', its cognates and related words.

That's such reductionist nonsense.

If the philosophy of mind can be nothing more than an explanation of how we use the word "mind", its cognates and related words then the philosophy of usage can be nothing more than an explanation of how we use the word "usage", its cognates and related words.
And the philosophy of "brain" can be nothing more than an explanation of how we use the word "brain", its cognates and related words.

So go ahead and explain to me how you use the word "usage" and explain to me how you use the word "brain" without using your brain.

If the philosophy of <insert any term> is about the usage of that term, then you have reduced philosophy to linguistics.

HOW you use language differs depending on WHAT we are using language for.

Look likes Peter Holmes' mind is deteriorating the more he clings to the stupid [lack intelligence] ideas of his.

[Belinda]

The philosophy of mind can be nothing more than an explanation of how we use, or could use, the word 'mind', its cognates and related words.

That's such reductionist nonsense.

If the philosophy of mind can be nothing more than an explanation of how we use the word "mind", its cognates and related words then the philosophy of usage can be nothing more than an explanation of how we use the word "usage", its cognates and related words.
And the philosophy of "brain" can be nothing more than an explanation of how we use the word "brain", its cognates and related words.

So go ahead and explain to me how you use the word "usage" and explain to me how you use the word "brain" without using your brain.

If the philosophy of <insert any term> is about the usage of that term, then you have reduced philosophy to linguistics.

HOW you use language differs depending on WHAT we are using language for.

That, Skepdick, is what I meant by Peter's " philosophy of mind can be nothing more than an explanation of how we use, or could use, the word 'mind', its cognates and related words.

"

being what dictionaries or thesauruses are for.

True, the word 'mind' is , like other socially plastic meanings, not ordained by a god. However when we are doing philosophy we define our terminology for the purpose of the metaphysical discussion.

I know I have a mind, and my attitude towards Peter is he also has a mind. To discuss the status of cerebral beings we have to contemplate what is the nature of mind and what is the nature of body.

Peter seems to think mind is an epiphenomenon. This is a reasonable assumption despite it is not the ontology I myself prefer. Peter also argues abstract concepts are epiphenomena related to but not necessary for the existence of the concrete. This particular idea is inconsistent with how living concepts and associated language evolves through time and place, which is accomplished via metaphor.

[Belinda]

The philosophy of mind can be nothing more than an explanation of how we use, or could use, the word 'mind', its cognates and related words.

That's such reductionist nonsense.

If the philosophy of mind can be nothing more than an explanation of how we use the word "mind", its cognates and related words then the philosophy of usage can be nothing more than an explanation of how we use the word "usage", its cognates and related words.
And the philosophy of "brain" can be nothing more than an explanation of how we use the word "brain", its cognates and related words.

So go ahead and explain to me how you use the word "usage" and explain to me how you use the word "brain" without using your brain.

If the philosophy of <insert any term> is about the usage of that term, then you have reduced philosophy to linguistics.

HOW you use language differs depending on WHAT we are using language for.

That, Skepdick, is what I meant by Peter's " philosophy of mind can be nothing more than an explanation of how we use, or could use, the word 'mind', its cognates and related words.

"

being what dictionaries or thesauruses are for.

True, the word 'mind' is , like other socially plastic meanings, not ordained by a god. However when we are doing philosophy we define our terminology for the purpose of the metaphysical discussion.

I know I have a mind, and my attitude towards Peter is he also has a mind. To discuss the status of cerebral beings we have to contemplate what is the nature of mind and what is the nature of body.

Peter seems to think mind is an epiphenomenon. This is a reasonable assumption despite it is not the ontology I myself prefer. Peter also argues abstract concepts are epiphenomena related to but not necessary for the existence of the concrete. This particular idea is inconsistent with how living concepts and associated language*** evolves through time and place, which is accomplished via metaphor.

*** not function words which do not contain specific meanings and can relate to any number of concepts.

[Peter Holmes]

Your syllogism is not valid.
Logically it should be,

P1 Morality is about promoting good (as defined) and avoiding evil (as defined).
P2 The killing of humans is evil (as defined).
C Therefore, killing of humans is not good, i.e. not compatible with morality.

What counts as good and evil is a matter of opinion, and defining (describing) them doesn't change that fact. So, for that reason alone, this argument is uselessly question-begging. There's nothing objective here.

What is fact i.e. objective is not based primarily on defining and describing it.

What is evil is objective as verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK. I have done that a "1000" times in my previous posts.
This is the similar to what is poisonous to humans [objectively] is verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK, i.e. chemistry and biology.

Where is the question-begging?

Here it is.

1 Fact: all facts exist within a descriptive context (an FSK) - for example, biological, chemical, legal, geological, and so on.

2 Conclusion: Therefore moral facts exist within a moral descriptive context (a moral FSK).

#2 doesn't follow from #1. That facts exist within a descriptive context doesn't mean that any descriptive context contains or can produce facts. For example, there are no astrological or alchemical facts.

I did not expect you to be SO stupid [lack intelligence] in this case.
Here is how you are deceptive.
You stated;
1 Fact: all facts exist within a descriptive context (an FSK) - for example, biological, chemical, legal, geological, and so on.

Nope! it should be;

• 1 Fact: what are facts are that which are verified and justified empirically & philosophically with a credible FSK - for example, biological, chemical, legal, geological, and so on.
  
  2 Conclusion: Therefore biological, chemical, legal, geological, facts exists and conditioned upon a credible FSK.
  
  3. Moral facts are facts that are verified and justified empirically & philosophically with a credible moral FSK

Note the extent you try to cheat to get your points through by omitting the critical
"what are facts are that which are verified and justified empirically & philosophically with a credible FSK"

On the other hand, you are the one who is begging the question with your claim of 'what is fact' by presuming facts exist before verifying and justifying they exists.

False. I think any factual assertion needs empirical verification - which means the existence of facts must be demonstrable. You beg the question by merely claiming that there is a moral 'FSK', so that there are moral facts.

I don't beg the question like you.
I start with empirical evidences, verify and justify them and end up with an empirical based conclusion of empirically justified true moral facts.

Nope. You're deluded. You haven't demonstrated the existence of one so-called moral fact. Your go-to example - no human ought to kill humans - is demonstrably not a fact, but rather the expression of a moral opinion.

I have demonstrated [a 1000 times] the moral fact, i.e.
'no human ought to kill humans'
as an inherent ought_ness within the constitution of all humans,
and with a moral framework and system of reality and knowledge.

Your skull and 'silo' is so thick and tightly enclosed, as expected, there is no way you will ever understand [not necessary agree with] the above.

So here's your argument, with the added and crucial condition.

P1 All facts are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK - for example biological, chemical and legal facts.
P2 There is a credible moral FSK.
C Therefore moral facts are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.

This is valid, but unsound - or at least not shown to be sound - because P2 is undemonstrated. You have to demonstrate the existence of a credible moral framework and system of knowledge without assuming the existence of moral facts, which would beg the question.

[Skepdick]

So here's your argument, with the added and crucial condition.

P1 All facts are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK - for example biological, chemical and legal facts.
P2 There is a credible moral FSK.
C Therefore moral facts are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.

This is valid, but unsound - or at least not shown to be sound - because P2 is undemonstrated. You have to demonstrate the existence of a credible moral framework and system of knowledge without assuming the existence of moral facts, which would beg the question.

This is the philosophical retardation playing out at full swing.

The task at hand is appraising the wrongness of murder
The retard Philosophers default to appraising the argument instead.

One gets the feeling Philosophers have their moral priorities confused.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So here's your argument, with the added and crucial condition.

P1 All facts are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK - for example biological, chemical and legal facts.
P2 There is a credible moral FSK.
C Therefore moral facts are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.

This is valid, but unsound - or at least not shown to be sound - because P2 is undemonstrated. You have to demonstrate the existence of a credible moral framework and system of knowledge without assuming the existence of moral facts, which would beg the question.

I am not that stupid to claim for a credible moral framework based on existence of moral facts.

I have already demonstrate how a moral FSK is credible.

What is a Moral Framework and System?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31603

I have stated the Moral Framework and System is similar to the Scientific FSK thus has almost the same credibility as the scientific FSK.
Beside the majority of input into the moral FSK are scientific facts from the scientific FSK.

The Moral FSK has similar features to the Scientific FSK, note,
The Credibility and Reliability of the Scientific FSK,

Your claim of 'begging the question' and unsound is not because my argument is circular, rather it is because of your ignorance, shallow, narrow thinking and dogmatism adopted from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers.

[Peter Holmes]

So here's your argument, with the added and crucial condition.

P1 All facts are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK - for example biological, chemical and legal facts.
P2 There is a credible moral FSK.
C Therefore moral facts are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.

This is valid, but unsound - or at least not shown to be sound - because P2 is undemonstrated. You have to demonstrate the existence of a credible moral framework and system of knowledge without assuming the existence of moral facts, which would beg the question.

I am not that stupid to claim for a credible moral framework based on existence of moral facts.

I have already demonstrate how a moral FSK is credible.

What is a Moral Framework and System?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31603

I have stated the Moral Framework and System is similar to the Scientific FSK thus has almost the same credibility as the scientific FSK.
Beside the majority of input into the moral FSK are scientific facts from the scientific FSK.

The Moral FSK has similar features to the Scientific FSK, note,
The Credibility and Reliability of the Scientific FSK,

Your claim of 'begging the question' and unsound is not because my argument is circular, rather it is because of your ignorance, shallow, narrow thinking and dogmatism adopted from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers.

So your fantasy 'morality FSK' relies largely on 'inputs' from 'the scientific FSK'. What inputs are those? Perhaps they're putative facts about our brains? Perhaps the putative fact that we're programmed not to kill other humans? Is that one of those 'inputs'?

But, as you know, the fact that we're programmed not to kill other humans doesn't mean that, morally, we ought not to do so. The criterion for moral rightness and wrongness can't be what we're programmed to do. If it were, if we were programmed to kill other humans, it would be morally right to do so.

But wait...that's what you claim. Your claim that there are moral facts leads you to say that killing other humans can be morally both right and wrong.

WAFWOT.

[Terrapin Station]

I have already demonstrate how a moral FSK is credible.

What is a Moral Framework and System?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31603

I have stated the Moral Framework and System is similar to the Scientific FSK thus has almost the same credibility as the scientific FSK.
Beside the majority of input into the moral FSK are scientific facts from the scientific FSK.

The Moral FSK has similar features to the Scientific FSK, note,
The Credibility and Reliability of the Scientific FSK,

Re the thread you're referencing, I just noticed how bad the writing is from the professor you're quoting. First, he starts off with "An moral system . . ." and then he has this sentence: "Not just any rules, of course, but moral values?"--as if he's posing a question, but he's not. That should have been a period. A couple sentences later he writes, " In order to satisfactory do this . . ." And that's not the end of his struggles writing simple English--yet somehow he's a philosophy professor at St. Edwards?

This isn't even to mention the philosophical/conceptual problems in his writing.

At any rate, what you've yet to do that we'd need to do is start a thread from scratch basically, where you don't reference any other thread or post you've made, where you don't ignore any questions and rather directly answer them, where you attempt to defend that there are verifiable moral facts etc. in moral frameworks and systems, and where you do this under the guise of a moral framework and system that you present, rather than simply just brushing by it with hand-waving analogies to scientific frameworks and systems.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So here's your argument, with the added and crucial condition.

P1 All facts are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK - for example biological, chemical and legal facts.
P2 There is a credible moral FSK.
C Therefore moral facts are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.

This is valid, but unsound - or at least not shown to be sound - because P2 is undemonstrated. You have to demonstrate the existence of a credible moral framework and system of knowledge without assuming the existence of moral facts, which would beg the question.

I am not that stupid to claim for a credible moral framework based on existence of moral facts.

I have already demonstrate how a moral FSK is credible.

What is a Moral Framework and System?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31603

I have stated the Moral Framework and System is similar to the Scientific FSK thus has almost the same credibility as the scientific FSK.
Beside the majority of input into the moral FSK are scientific facts from the scientific FSK.

The Moral FSK has similar features to the Scientific FSK, note,
The Credibility and Reliability of the Scientific FSK,

Your claim of 'begging the question' and unsound is not because my argument is circular, rather it is because of your ignorance, shallow, narrow thinking and dogmatism adopted from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers.

So your fantasy 'morality FSK' relies largely on 'inputs' from 'the scientific FSK'. What inputs are those? Perhaps they're putative facts about our brains? Perhaps the putative fact that we're programmed not to kill other humans? Is that one of those 'inputs'?

But, as you know, the fact that we're programmed not to kill other humans doesn't mean that, morally, we ought not to do so. The criterion for moral rightness and wrongness can't be what we're programmed to do. If it were, if we were programmed to kill other humans, it would be morally right to do so.

But wait...that's what you claim. Your claim that there are moral facts leads you to say that killing other humans can be morally both right and wrong.

WAFWOT.

There is the scientific fact,
all humans are programmed not to kill other humans.

As I stated many times, your using of moral rightness and wrongness is barking up the wrong tree.
How many '1000' times must I remind you of the following;

Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615

The point is there is a pattern of human behaviors most recognized and categorized as 'morality'.
However morality in general has been loosely defined.
I then defined what is morality-proper to be dealt with a moral FSK just like how other fields of knowledge are dealt within the specific FSK.

What I have done is to input the scientific facts into the credible moral FSK to justify the moral fact, i.e. "no human ought to kill humans", to be used as a moral standard to contribute to the progress of mankind.
Establishing the above moral fact as a moral standard is not about moral wrongness and rightness.

Note I did not claim there are moral fact, so "no human ought to kill humans" is about moral wrongness and rightness.
What is a moral fact is based on empirical evidence and then verified and justified within a moral framework to confirm it is a justified true moral fact.
Establishing the above moral fact as a moral standard is not about moral wrongness and rightness.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have already demonstrate how a moral FSK is credible.

What is a Moral Framework and System?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31603

I have stated the Moral Framework and System is similar to the Scientific FSK thus has almost the same credibility as the scientific FSK.
Beside the majority of input into the moral FSK are scientific facts from the scientific FSK.

The Moral FSK has similar features to the Scientific FSK, note,
The Credibility and Reliability of the Scientific FSK,

Re the thread you're referencing, I just noticed how bad the writing is from the professor you're quoting. First, he starts off with "An moral system . . ." and then he has this sentence: "Not just any rules, of course, but moral values?"--as if he's posing a question, but he's not. That should have been a period. A couple sentences later he writes, " In order to satisfactory do this . . ." And that's not the end of his struggles writing simple English--yet somehow he's a philosophy professor at St. Edwards?

This isn't even to mention the philosophical/conceptual problems in his writing.

At any rate, what you've yet to do that we'd need to do is start a thread from scratch basically, where you don't reference any other thread or post you've made, where you don't ignore any questions and rather directly answer them, where you attempt to defend that there are verifiable moral facts etc. in moral frameworks and systems, and where you do this under the guise of a moral framework and system that you present, rather than simply just brushing by it with hand-waving analogies to scientific frameworks and systems.

You are too pedantic in this case and where is your Principle of Charity.
The "an" could be typo by his staff.

"Not just any rules, of course, but moral values?"
I believe he meant, "of course, it is not just any rules" and he asked should it be moral values to get in line with the topic.

What I am interested is the core principles of 'what is a moral system' which I believe is conveyed in those points.

At any rate, what you've yet to do that we'd need to do is start a thread from scratch basically,

It a matter of time management and efficiency.
Why should I waste time starting from scratch in this case if I think those points are sufficient.

I am already literally charitable in giving an explanation.
I believe an average person of philosophical knowledge would not need me to explain what is a "framework and system" and one that is related to a specific field of knowledge, because the concept of 'framework and system' is so commonly used within philosophical discussions.

[Peter Holmes]

I am not that stupid to claim for a credible moral framework based on existence of moral facts.

I have already demonstrate how a moral FSK is credible.

What is a Moral Framework and System?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31603

I have stated the Moral Framework and System is similar to the Scientific FSK thus has almost the same credibility as the scientific FSK.
Beside the majority of input into the moral FSK are scientific facts from the scientific FSK.

The Moral FSK has similar features to the Scientific FSK, note,
The Credibility and Reliability of the Scientific FSK,

Your claim of 'begging the question' and unsound is not because my argument is circular, rather it is because of your ignorance, shallow, narrow thinking and dogmatism adopted from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers.

So your fantasy 'morality FSK' relies largely on 'inputs' from 'the scientific FSK'. What inputs are those? Perhaps they're putative facts about our brains? Perhaps the putative fact that we're programmed not to kill other humans? Is that one of those 'inputs'?

But, as you know, the fact that we're programmed not to kill other humans doesn't mean that, morally, we ought not to do so. The criterion for moral rightness and wrongness can't be what we're programmed to do. If it were, if we were programmed to kill other humans, it would be morally right to do so.

But wait...that's what you claim. Your claim that there are moral facts leads you to say that killing other humans can be morally both right and wrong.

WAFWOT.

There is the scientific fact,
all humans are programmed not to kill other humans.

As I stated many times, your using of moral rightness and wrongness is barking up the wrong tree.
How many '1000' times must I remind you of the following;

Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615

The point is there is a pattern of human behaviors most recognized and categorized as 'morality'.
However morality in general has been loosely defined.
I then defined what is morality-proper to be dealt with a moral FSK just like how other fields of knowledge are dealt within the specific FSK.

What I have done is to input the scientific facts into the credible moral FSK to justify the moral fact, i.e. "no human ought to kill humans", to be used as a moral standard to contribute to the progress of mankind.
Establishing the above moral fact as a moral standard is not about moral wrongness and rightness.

Note I did not claim there are moral fact, so "no human ought to kill humans" is about moral wrongness and rightness.
What is a moral fact is based on empirical evidence and then verified and justified within a moral framework to confirm it is a justified true moral fact.
Establishing the above moral fact as a moral standard is not about moral wrongness and rightness.

Please produce a definition of morality that doesn't mention rightness and wrongness, propriety and impropriety, or goodness and badness (or evil). Every definition you've produced so far mentions one or more of these things - so I'm puzzled.

If your invention 'morality-proper' doesn't involve rightness and wrongness, and so on, but merely involves consistency with programming, then you're not talking about morality at all. In itself, consistency with programming has no moral implication. It's just obeying orders.

[Terrapin Station]

It a matter of time management and efficiency.
Why should I waste time starting from scratch in this case if I think those points are sufficient.

You spend FAR more time making posts like this one, where they amount to simply treading water, so that we don't get anywhere.

[Terrapin Station]

I believe an average person of philosophical knowledge would not need me to explain what is a "framework and system" and one that is related to a specific field of knowledge, because the concept of 'framework and system' is so commonly used within philosophical discussions.

Also, ignoring your ridiculously patronizing crap here, which you've been amping up lately, it's not simply a matter of whether we can appeal to some common/conventional wisdom notion. It's whether one is capable of supporting that notion against philosophical challenges, without simply appealing to consensus or authoritative conventions.