All Moral State-of-affairs are Facts

[Skepdick]

Double standards in as much as your applying them to me, but not to VA, you mean?

I mean the double-standard of your misunderstanding.

Morality exists (ontological fact).
But it's not a fact (?!?)

[Harbal]

Morality exists (ontological fact).

It exists in the same way as a preference for colour exists. Is "blue is better than red" or "I prefer blue to red" ontological fact.

[Skepdick]

It exists in the same way as a preference for colour exists. Is "blue is better than red" or "I prefer blue to red" ontological fact.

Everything that exists, exists in the same way - ontologically. To insist otherwise is to commit special pleading.

Your individual preference towards either color exists in the same way that The Sun exists.

[Harbal]

Everything that exists, exists in the same way.

Your preference towards either is color exists in the same way that The Sun exists.

Forget that, we've strayed away from the point.

"All Moral State-of-affairs are Facts." No they aren't, only items of information can be facts. A moral state of affairs is a set of circumstances, not a fact.

[Skepdick]

"All Moral State-of-affairs are Facts." No they aren't

ALL states of affairs are facts.
Morality exists, therefore morality is the state of affairs.
Morality is a fact.

only items of information can be facts.

That's what I have been saying to you ALL along!!!!

One answer to a yes/no question is 1 bit of information.

Unit of information

A moral state of affairs is a set of circumstances, not a fact.

Then how did you answer "Does morality exist?" with a "yes"

1 bit of INFORMATION.

[Harbal]

That's what I have been saying to you ALL along!!!!

Is it really? Well you didn't say it as succinctly as I did.

[Skepdick]

Is it really? Well you didn't say it as succinctly as I did.

It's only "succinct" in your semantic.

You are still contradicting yourself in wording.

[Harbal]

You are still contradicting yourself in wording.

Yet I still prefer my wording to yours.

[Skepdick]

Yet I still prefer my wording to yours.

Naturally.

I told you that too when I said I am probably misunderstanding the meaning of your yes/no questions.

[Harbal]

ALL states of affairs are facts.
Morality exists, therefore morality is the state of affairs.
Morality is a fact.

That's an atrocious piece of reasoning.

States of affairs are not facts, they are sets of circumstances. A moral state-of-affairs is a set of circumstances relating to morality. Only information about something can be a fact, ie., information about a state-of-affairs, or information about morality.

And another thing: You keep harping on about ontology, but doesn't morality come under deontology?

[Skepdick]

That's an atrocious piece of reasoning.

By whose standard for attrociousness?

States of affairs are not facts

OK well.

Here I thought that everybody in English used the phrase "facts" to refer to expressions that correctly depict the set of affairs.

Only information about something can be a fact, ie., information about a state-of-affairs, or information about morality.

Precisely!

You answering the question "Does morality exist?" with a "Yes" Is 1 bit of information. It is a fact that morality exists.
You answering the question "Is murder wrong/immoral?" with a "Yes" is 1 bit of information. It is a fact that murder is wrong/immoral.

What is confusing you here?

Do you have some weird conception of "information" that you need to share with us?

[Harbal]

By whose standard for attrociousness?

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't have the list

You answering the question "Does morality exist?" with a "Yes" Is 1 bit of information. It is a fact that morality exists.
You answering the question "Is murder wrong/immoral?" with a "Yes" is 1 bit of information. It is a fact that murder is wrong/immoral.

"Morality exists" is the fact, morality itself is not a fact.

I don't remember saying yes to murder is wrong/immoral. Murder is legally wrong according our law, and it is morally wrong according to my own moral principles. It may not be wrong according to everyone's moral principles, though. So I would say that the moral rightness or wrongness of murder is a subjective ethical judgement.

What is confusing you here?

Do you have some weird conception of "information" that you need to share with us?

I supposed I am slightly confused as to why you feel the need to end each reply with a sort of passive/aggressive put down. I daresay it's an attempt to undermine my confidence. I suppose I should feel flattered that you think that necessary.

[Skepdick]

"Morality exists" is the fact, morality itself is not a fact.

"The sun exist" is the fact. the sun itself is not a fact.

What does the latter part of the sentence even mean?

I don't remember saying yes to murder is wrong/immoral.

Murder is legally wrong according our law, and it is morally wrong according to my own moral principles.

So you ARE saying "yes" to "Is murder wrong/immoral?"

It may not be wrong according to everyone's moral principles, though.

Yes. Some people might disagree about the color of the sun too. So what?

So I would say that the moral rightness or wrongness of murder is a subjective ethical judgement.

And I would ask. So what?

Judgments exist. Ontologically and objectively.

I supposed I am slightly confused as to why you feel the need to end each reply with a sort of passive/aggressive put down. I daresay it's an attempt to undermine my confidence. I suppose I should feel flattered that you think that necessary.

You are interpreting my genuine questions as aggression/put-down?

I genuinely don't understand how you are using the word "information". You are able to synthesize an opinion on a yes/no question therefore there exists 1 bit of information.

If there was no information on the matter of "Is murder wrong?" you would't be able to hold even an opinion. You would be as befuddled by the question as if I had asked you "Is the sky grobmunf?"

[Harbal]

I genuinely don't understand how you are using the word "information".

And I genuinely don't understand what is meant by "moral fact". Or at least I don't know what you or VA mean by it.

Do you just mean a fact about morals, such as, X% of the population object to abortion on moral grounds?

I just don't understand what is being argued. It can't just be that morals exist, that would be pointless, nobody would deny that morals exist.

Please give me an example of a moral fact of the type whose existence is apparently being called into question.

[Skepdick]

And I genuinely don't understand what is meant by "moral fact". Or at least I don't know what you or VA mean by it.

And I don't understand what it is that you don't understand.

What do you generally mean by "fact"? Moral or otherwise.