PH's "Morality is NOT Objective" is False.

[Veritas Aequitas]

PH's "Morality is NOT Objective" [implied] is False because;
PH's what is fact is a feature of reality that is the case, state of affairs, just-is, which is independent of the individuals' opinion, beliefs, & judgment; such a fact exist regardless of whether there are humans or not; PH fact is grounded on an illusion from philosophical realism.
PH's fact as defined above is exactly what Kant labelled as noumenon aka thing-in-itself. Link

PH's argument that "Morality is NOT Objective" is as follows;

• P1 Facts are absolutely independent of human conditions.
  P2 Moral assertions of morality are dependent on human conditions.
  C1 Moral assertions of morality cannot be facts.
  
  P3 What is objective is represented by facts[P1]
  P4 Morality is not represented by facts. [C1]
  C2 Morality is NOT objective

PH's "Morality is NOT Objective" is False, because;

There are two senses of 'what is fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
1. Facts as independent feature of reality = illusory, fictional, nonsensical
2: FSERC Conditioned Facts = realistic, e.g. scientific facts.

Since PH adopts sense 1 in P1 thus, PH's facts are illusory, so, P1 cannot be real.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

There are two senses of Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. Objectivity in the Philosophical Realism Sense - illusory
2. Objectivity in the FSRC Sense - realistic
Since PH adopts sense 1, his sense of Objectivity is illusory, i.e. not real and false.

Since PH's sense of fact and objectivity are illusory, not real and false,
the conclusion C2 that follows from P1 is false.

So, PH's C2 "Morality is NOT Objective" is False.
QED

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[LuckyR]

Just because one man's proof is false doesn't equate to proving the opposite conclusion is true.

[Skepdick]

Just because one man's proof is false doesn't equate to proving the opposite conclusion is true.

It does in any logic with excluded middle.

[LuckyR]

Just because one man's proof is false doesn't equate to proving the opposite conclusion is true.

It does in any logic with excluded middle.

You are familiar with the possibility of ten logicians coming up with 10 different proofs on the same question, with 9 having errors and one being true, right?

[Skepdick]

You are familiar with the possibility of ten logicians coming up with 10 different proofs on the same question, with 9 having errors and one being true, right?

I am familiar with the fact that if it's false that I have 11 fingers on my left hand then it's true that I don't.

[Impenitent]

only 11 fingers on your left hand?

then you'd only need 8 left hands to hit all the keys on a standard piano at the same time...

-Imp

[LuckyR]

You are familiar with the possibility of ten logicians coming up with 10 different proofs on the same question, with 9 having errors and one being true, right?

I am familiar with the fact that if it's false that I have 11 fingers on my left hand then it's true that I don't.

Oh do try to stretch yourself, it's worth it, trust me.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Just because one man's proof is false doesn't equate to proving the opposite conclusion is true.

In the OP I did not claim otherwise.

Where I have claim Morality is objective, I have always provided the supporting argument.