What could make morality objective?

[Magnus Anderson]

A fact is that which is the case. You are a fact. I am a fact. Mountains are facts. Rocks are facts. This forum is a fact.

We can define things as we like, but going with my definition, I am not a fact. Rocks aren't facts. To facts are about other things. A sentence could be a fact or it could be fictional.

You're using the word "fact" the same way that you use the word "truth". As far as you are concerned, the word "fact" and the word "truth" are synonymous with each other.

However, if you look inside dictionaries, that's not the most common definition.

Google
a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Merriam-Webster
something that actually exists or occurs

Cambridge Dictionary
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information

Dictionary.com
that which actually exists or is the case; reality or truth:

( This one is somewhat lame given that "reality" and "truth" mean two different things. But the first part of the definition aligns with other dictionary definitions. )

Britannica
something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

Wikipedia is somewhat confused on the issue.

In the context of "fact-value distinction", the term "fact" refers to "what is" and the term "value" refers to "what ought to be". The problem with the distinction is that an "ought" is a type of "is". Every "ought" statement has an equivalent "is" statement ( going against what Hume claimed. ) The equivalent of "You ought to eat" is "The decision that leads to the most preferable consequences for you at this point in time is to eat". It goes without saying that Hume wasn't particularly bright.

[Skepdick]

The decision that leads to the most preferable consequences for you at this point in time...

... is to invade your country, steal all of your resources, enslave all your people and profit for centuries from exploiting your workforce for below-minimum wage. Then use all the wealth we've plundered to provide social welfare for our people.

If you are going to think in the limit go big or go home.

[Harbal]

Every "ought" statement has an equivalent "is" statement ( going against what Hume claimed. ) The equivalent of "You ought to eat" is "The decision that leads to the most preferable consequences for you at this point in time is to eat".

Every "ought" statement has an implied "if" statement: You ought to eat, if you want to stay alive. Maybe you don't want to stay alive, in which case it is not necessarily true that you ought to eat.

[Skepdick]

Every "ought" statement has an implied "if" statement: You ought to eat, if you want to stay alive. Maybe you don't want to stay alive, in which case it is not necessarily true that you ought to eat.

You say if, I say unless.

You ought to eat, unless you have good reasons not to.

If requires you to list every possible conditional.
Unless only requires you to list the exception.

It's very economical.

[Peter Holmes]

A fact is that which is the case. You are a fact. I am a fact. Mountains are facts. Rocks are facts. This forum is a fact.

We can define things as we like, but going with my definition, I am not a fact. Rocks aren't facts. To facts are about other things. A sentence could be a fact or it could be fictional.

You're using the word "fact" the same way that you use the word "truth". As far as you are concerned, the word "fact" and the word "truth" are synonymous with each other.

However, if you look inside dictionaries, that's not the most common definition.

Google
a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Merriam-Webster
something that actually exists or occurs

Cambridge Dictionary
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information

Dictionary.com
that which actually exists or is the case; reality or truth:

( This one is somewhat lame given that "reality" and "truth" mean two different things. But the first part of the definition aligns with other dictionary definitions. )

Britannica
something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

Wikipedia is somewhat confused on the issue.

In the context of "fact-value distinction", the term "fact" refers to "what is" and the term "value" refers to "what ought to be". The problem with the distinction is that an "ought" is a type of "is". Every "ought" statement has an equivalent "is" statement ( going against what Hume claimed. ) The equivalent of "You ought to eat" is "The decision that leads to the most preferable consequences for you at this point in time is to eat". It goes without saying that Hume wasn't particularly bright.

Oh, please. I've been emphasising the two radically different uses of the word 'fact' for as long as I can remember here: feature of reality that is or was the case; description of such a feature of reality - typically a linguistic expression.

Outside language, there are no truths or falsehoods - or contradictions - in reality, because, outside language, reality is not linguistic. And that's why correspondence or maker-bearer 'theories' of truth are obviously mistaken.

And your gloss on Hume is fatuous. There's no deductive connection between a factual assertion and an evaluative one - such as a moral one. But, by all means, try to propose such a deduction.

And when you can't, have the intellectual integrity to re-think your position.

[Magnus Anderson]

Every "ought" statement has an implied "if" statement: You ought to eat, if you want to stay alive. Maybe you don't want to stay alive, in which case it is not necessarily true that you ought to eat.

Maybe some but certainly not all. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that most "ought" statements imply no "if" statement at all. Instead, they merely tell you what's the best course of action for you to take ( rather than what would be the best course of action for you to take if you aimed for this or that. )

[Skepdick]

Oh, please. I've been emphasising the two radically different uses of the word 'fact' for as long as I can remember here: feature of reality that is or was the case; description of such a feature of reality - typically a linguistic expression.

Please explain to me where descriptions of "the past" come from.

Outside language, there are no truths or falsehoods - or contradictions - in reality, because, outside language, reality is not linguistic. And that's why correspondence or maker-bearer 'theories' of truth are obviously mistaken.

Why? What's "wrong" with any linguistic expression?

And your gloss on Hume is fatuous. There's no deductive connection between a factual assertion and an evaluative one - such as a moral one.

The connection is that they are both assertions being asserted by an asserter. Of course there is a connection. Deductive logic can be reconstructed from inductive reasoning using infinitary processes. It's called the sequent calculus..

Starting with the Big Bang you can work all your way up to this present monment in time, and then account for the decision you are making. That's how history works.

Deductive or inductive. An assertion is an assertion is an assertion is an assertion is an assertion is an assertion is an assertion is an assertion is.

Law of identity.

And when you can't, have the intellectual integrity to re-think your position.

What do you know about intellectual integrity?

[Magnus Anderson]

Oh, please. I've been emphasising the two radically different uses of the word 'fact' for as long as I can remember here: feature of reality that is or was the case; description of such a feature of reality - typically a linguistic expression.

Well, I suppose we should admire your intelligence then. We can build you a temple, if you want, and worship you, the all-knowing Peter Holmes.

Did you notice I wasn't responding to you?

Outside language, there are no truths or falsehoods - or contradictions - in reality, because, outside language, reality is not linguistic. And that's why correspondence or maker-bearer 'theories' of truth are obviously mistaken.

Truth: a proposition that is true, i.e. that corresponds to the portion of reality it is attempting to represent.

A proposition held by someone to be true is called a belief. Beliefs exist, thus propositions exist just as well. A true belief is a true proposition, which means, it is an instance of truth. People who believe that "2 + 2 = 4" have a true proposition located somewhere inside their brains. That tells us that truths exist.

Falsehood: the opposite of truth, a proposition that is NOT true, i.e. that does not correspond to the portion of reality it is attempting to represent.

There are falsehoolds everywhere you look. Every false belief is an instance of a falsehood. There are people who believe the Earth is flat. There are people who believe that it is round. Since they can't both be right, one of them is holding a false belief. Therefore, falsehoods exist.

And the so-called correspondnce "theory" of truth isn't mistaken at all. It's merely an accurate definition of the word "truth".

And your gloss on Hume is fatuous. There's no deductive connection between a factual assertion and an evaluative one - such as a moral one. But, by all means, try to propose such a deduction.

And when you can't, have the intellectual integrity to re-think your position.

"Blah blah blah. I'm right and you're wrong."

[Harbal]

Every "ought" statement has an implied "if" statement: You ought to eat, if you want to stay alive. Maybe you don't want to stay alive, in which case it is not necessarily true that you ought to eat.

You say if, I say unless.

You ought to eat, unless you have good reasons not to.

If requires you to list every possible conditional.
Unless only requires you to list the exception.

It's very economical.

But there could be numerous exceptions, couldn't there?

[Skepdick]

Every "ought" statement has an implied "if" statement: You ought to eat, if you want to stay alive. Maybe you don't want to stay alive, in which case it is not necessarily true that you ought to eat.

You say if, I say unless.

You ought to eat, unless you have good reasons not to.

If requires you to list every possible conditional.
Unless only requires you to list the exception.

It's very economical.

But there could be numerous exceptions, couldn't there?

But there could be numerous "if" statements, couldn't there?

I didn't list them because they are exceptions, not norms.

If they were norms I would've writen "You ought not eat, unless you have good reason to"

If then is symmetric.

X unless Y is asymmetric.

[Harbal]

Every "ought" statement has an implied "if" statement: You ought to eat, if you want to stay alive. Maybe you don't want to stay alive, in which case it is not necessarily true that you ought to eat.

Maybe some but certainly not all. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that most "ought" statements imply no "if" statement at all. Instead, they merely tell you what's the best course of action for you to take ( rather than what would be the best course of action for you to take if you aimed for this or that. )

Can you give an example of an ought statement that prohibits an "if"?

[Skepdick]

Can you give an example of an ought statement that prohibits an "if"?

if X then Y else ??? - open form. Undefined ??? behaviour.
X unless Y - closed form. No undefined behaviour.

[Iwannaplato]

A fact is that which is the case. You are a fact. I am a fact. Mountains are facts. Rocks are facts. This forum is a fact.

We can define things as we like, but going with my definition, I am not a fact. Rocks aren't facts. To facts are about other things. A sentence could be a fact or it could be fictional.

You're using the word "fact" the same way that you use the word "truth". As far as you are concerned, the word "fact" and the word "truth" are synonymous with each other.

However, if you look inside dictionaries, that's not the most common definition.

Google
a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Merriam-Webster
something that actually exists or occurs

Cambridge Dictionary
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information

Dictionary.com
that which actually exists or is the case; reality or truth:

( This one is somewhat lame given that "reality" and "truth" mean two different things. But the first part of the definition aligns with other dictionary definitions. )

Britannica
something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

Wikipedia is somewhat confused on the issue.

In the context of "fact-value distinction", the term "fact" refers to "what is" and the term "value" refers to "what ought to be". The problem with the distinction is that an "ought" is a type of "is". Every "ought" statement has an equivalent "is" statement ( going against what Hume claimed. ) The equivalent of "You ought to eat" is "The decision that leads to the most preferable consequences for you at this point in time is to eat". It goes without saying that Hume wasn't particularly bright.

I'm going by usage. I know dictionaries have that meaning along with the one I use. I just notice that most people when they talk about facts, they are talking about assertions about reality that are accepted as true.

And sure, fact and truth come very close. There are a lot of synonyms in English.

Your version of fact is a synonym for real.

Does that undermine your usage somehow?

Now let's look at your first definition

Google
a thing that is known or proved to be true.

That seems a lot like a synonym for truth.

Of course the wording is ambiguous. A thing that is known, or proved, to be true. Is that what they meant? I don't know. Either way is certainly includes my definition.

Dictionary.com
that which actually exists or is the case; reality or truth:

And here it has both our definitions.

Perhaps I have a very odd life of experiences, but what I hear when people refer to facts (and books of facts) is assertions considered true.

I have never heard anyone, until you, say You are a fact, I am a fact.

I think someone saying 'that rock is a fact' is a very strange sentence.

You are real. That is real. Walruses are real.

I hear people talk about existing things using that adjective, rather than the noun you are using.

[Harbal]

Can you give an example of an ought statement that prohibits an "if"?

if X then Y else ??? - open form. Undefined ??? behaviour.
X unless Y - closed form. No undefined behaviour.

That means absolutely nothing to me.

Is it translatable into a real life situation, and if so, please give an example.

[Skepdick]

That means absolutely nothing to me.

Is it translatable into a real life situation, and if so, please give an example.

"If X then Y else Z"

If the light is green then push the red button else push the blue button.

"X unless Y"

Don't push the button unless the light is green.

"X until Y"

Hold the button until the light turns green.

They expresses various tenses and imperatives which don't currently have names in English. In programming languages we call them control-flow statements.

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

The entire confusion comes from the fact that imperatives have truth-values in programming languages, but not in conventional English, so philosopers are bringing their outdated understanding to the table when we have perfectly good truth-semantics for imperative statements.

They simply communicate facts about the future state of the universe.

"Alexa, turn on the lights in 5 minutes....OK.". 5 minutes later - lights turn on.

It's all about how time works.