Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 11:58 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 5:58 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:00 am
QED. Explaining why we need moral standards is easy. Showing it's a fact that we should or ought to have moral standards is what you can't do - because it isn't a fact. It's just an opinion.

But I agree. All you have to do is show that there are moral facts. And you, along with all other moral realists and objectivists, have failed so far - because the very idea of a moral fact is incoherent.

Nope!

There are moral standards everywhere from various moral systems [e.g. God's standards, various traditions, social, conventional], but they have not justified why moral standards are necessary in the penultimate [no ultimate] sense to the proximate 'WHY'.

Actually it is your sense of 'what is fact' is incoherent.
You have not yet proved a 'fact-in-itself' [feature of reality, state-of-affairs, that is the case] that is totally independent and unconditional upon a FSR/FSK exists.

What you deemed as 'fact' is actually sited at the very edge between the no-mans' land and that of la la land.
see From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341

Oh, you seem not to have read or remembered or even understood my previous remarks. Let's try again.

1 From a dictionary: a fact is a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true. (Oxford Concise). My gloss on this is that a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of that feature of reality - but you can stick with the dictionary definition, if you prefer.

2 It follows that what you call a moral fact must be a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true. Leaving aside the 'to be true' part, which can only be said of a factual assertion - a linguistic expression with a truth-value - a moral fact must be a thing that is known to exist or to have occurred. And leaving aside the strange idea that a moral fact is a thing that is known to have occurred - that leaves us with this: a moral fact must be a thing that is known to exist.

3 Any description - any truth-claim - exists in a descriptive context. So the idea that we can talk about a thing-in-itself is incoherent. As a consequence, I don't claim that there are things-in-themselves, or facts-in-themselves. I have no idea what they could be, so that even denying they exist is incoherent. Please don't endlessly re-erect that straw man. Let's stick to things that are known to exist.

4 So we're back to your claim that a moral fact is a thing that is known to exist. And you claim that such a thing can be empirically shown to exist. So all you have to do is show an example of such a thing. And remember, the claim 'humans ought not to kill humans' is a linguistic expression, and we're trying to leave language out of this discussion.

5 If it is a fact, the fact that humans are 'programmed' not to kill humans' isn't a moral fact, anymore than the fact that, say, lions are 'programmed' to kill antelopes is a moral fact. These are just facts about some kinds of mammalian behaviour. Judgement as to the moral propriety of leonine 'programming' and behaviour is a separate matter from the nature of that 'programming' and behaviour. And by the same argument, judgement as to the moral propriety of human 'programming' and behaviour is a separate matter from the nature of our 'programming' and behaviour.

6 To conclude, our 'programming' not to kill humans does (or may) qualify as what we call a fact - a thing that is known to exist, whose existence is empirically verifiable (or falsifiable). But that doesn't make 'the moral wrongness of killing humans' a fact - a thing that is known to exist, whose existence is empirically verifiable.

VA wrote:Once the Moral and Ethical Framework and System is established, whatever that is not in compliance with the justified standards set therein, they are morally false, not morally objective, not-true or morally wrong.
On this basis we can state "killing another human" is morally wrong conditioned upon the Moral System and Framework which establish the justified moral fact 'no human ought-to kill another human'.
Thus the moral rightness and wrongness, truth or falsehood must be qualified to the specific Moral-Ethics Framework and System.
viewtopic.php?p=478757#p478757

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 10:11 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 11:58 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 5:58 am
Nope!

There are moral standards everywhere from various moral systems [e.g. God's standards, various traditions, social, conventional], but they have not justified why moral standards are necessary in the penultimate [no ultimate] sense to the proximate 'WHY'.

Actually it is your sense of 'what is fact' is incoherent.
You have not yet proved a 'fact-in-itself' [feature of reality, state-of-affairs, that is the case] that is totally independent and unconditional upon a FSR/FSK exists.

What you deemed as 'fact' is actually sited at the very edge between the no-mans' land and that of la la land.
see From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341

Oh, you seem not to have read or remembered or even understood my previous remarks. Let's try again.

1 From a dictionary: a fact is a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true. (Oxford Concise). My gloss on this is that a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of that feature of reality - but you can stick with the dictionary definition, if you prefer.

2 It follows that what you call a moral fact must be a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true. Leaving aside the 'to be true' part, which can only be said of a factual assertion - a linguistic expression with a truth-value - a moral fact must be a thing that is known to exist or to have occurred. And leaving aside the strange idea that a moral fact is a thing that is known to have occurred - that leaves us with this: a moral fact must be a thing that is known to exist.

3 Any description - any truth-claim - exists in a descriptive context. So the idea that we can talk about a thing-in-itself is incoherent. As a consequence, I don't claim that there are things-in-themselves, or facts-in-themselves. I have no idea what they could be, so that even denying they exist is incoherent. Please don't endlessly re-erect that straw man. Let's stick to things that are known to exist.

4 So we're back to your claim that a moral fact is a thing that is known to exist. And you claim that such a thing can be empirically shown to exist. So all you have to do is show an example of such a thing. And remember, the claim 'humans ought not to kill humans' is a linguistic expression, and we're trying to leave language out of this discussion.

5 If it is a fact, the fact that humans are 'programmed' not to kill humans' isn't a moral fact, anymore than the fact that, say, lions are 'programmed' to kill antelopes is a moral fact. These are just facts about some kinds of mammalian behaviour. Judgement as to the moral propriety of leonine 'programming' and behaviour is a separate matter from the nature of that 'programming' and behaviour. And by the same argument, judgement as to the moral propriety of human 'programming' and behaviour is a separate matter from the nature of our 'programming' and behaviour.

6 To conclude, our 'programming' not to kill humans does (or may) qualify as what we call a fact - a thing that is known to exist, whose existence is empirically verifiable (or falsifiable). But that doesn't make 'the moral wrongness of killing humans' a fact - a thing that is known to exist, whose existence is empirically verifiable.

I am well aware of what you meant by fact. I have even explained how your 'fact' is historically derived from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists which they bastardized their moral stance from an ignorance of Hume's 'is-ought' distinction.

This is why I presented 'what is fact' in the philosophical sense [not common or conventional].

What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

Then I proceeded to explain what is a moral fact,
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

I explained here, the concept of 'morally wrong' or my preference, a variance from moral standards based on the above facts;

VA wrote:Once the Moral and Ethical Framework and System is established, whatever that is not in compliance with the justified standards set therein, they are morally false, not morally objective, not-true or morally wrong.
On this basis we can state "killing another human" is morally wrong conditioned upon the Moral System and Framework which establish the justified moral fact 'no human ought-to kill another human'.
Thus the moral rightness and wrongness, truth or falsehood must be qualified to the specific Moral-Ethics Framework and System.
viewtopic.php?p=478757#p478757

Read the whole post above.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 6:18 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 10:11 am I am well aware of what you meant by fact. I have even explained how your 'fact' is historically derived from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists which they bastardized their moral stance from an ignorance of Hume's 'is-ought' distinction.

This is why I presented 'what is fact' in the philosophical sense [not common or conventional].

What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

Then I proceeded to explain what is a moral fact,
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

I explained here, the concept of 'morally wrong' or my preference, a variance from moral standards based on the above facts;

VA wrote:Once the Moral and Ethical Framework and System is established, whatever that is not in compliance with the justified standards set therein, they are morally false, not morally objective, not-true or morally wrong.
On this basis we can state "killing another human" is morally wrong conditioned upon the Moral System and Framework which establish the justified moral fact 'no human ought-to kill another human'.
Thus the moral rightness and wrongness, truth or falsehood must be qualified to the specific Moral-Ethics Framework and System.
viewtopic.php?p=478757#p478757

Read the whole post above.

No thanks. I really must give this up. I'm afraid you're beyond help.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:17 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 6:18 pm No thanks. I really must give this up. I'm afraid you're beyond help.

I did not ask for help.
I merely participated to expose your ignorance of what is moral objectivity and in the course had expanded by database on the elements of morality and ethics.

Btw, note the hint, you are in the minority 28% where 56% of philosophers [not tom, dick or harry] are moral realists.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:17 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 6:18 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 10:11 am I am well aware of what you meant by fact. I have even explained how your 'fact' is historically derived from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists which they bastardized their moral stance from an ignorance of Hume's 'is-ought' distinction.

This is why I presented 'what is fact' in the philosophical sense [not common or conventional].

What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

Then I proceeded to explain what is a moral fact,
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

I explained here, the concept of 'morally wrong' or my preference, a variance from moral standards based on the above facts;



Read the whole post above.

No thanks. I really must give this up. I'm afraid you're beyond help.

I did not ask for help.
I merely participated to expose your ignorance of what is moral objectivity and in the course had expanded by database on the elements of morality and ethics.

Btw, note the hint, you are in the minority 28% where 56% of philosophers [not tom, dick or harry] are moral realists.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:28 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:17 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 6:18 pm
No thanks. I really must give this up. I'm afraid you're beyond help.

I did not ask for help.
I merely participated to expose your ignorance of what is moral objectivity and in the course had expanded by database on the elements of morality and ethics.

Btw, note the hint, you are in the minority 28% where 56% of philosophers [not tom, dick or harry] are moral realists.

Your not realising that you need help - that your reasoning is faulty and your argument unsound - is your main problem. But though you may be impervious to reason, others following this argument at least can weigh up the issues - so they may find it useful.

And who cares what the majority of philosophers think? For most of our history, most philosophers have assumed uncritically that abstract things exist - or at least are things that therefore may or may not exist - which is a metaphysical delusion. Being wrong on a massive scale is a philosophical pastime.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:43 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:28 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:17 am
I did not ask for help.
I merely participated to expose your ignorance of what is moral objectivity and in the course had expanded by database on the elements of morality and ethics.

Btw, note the hint, you are in the minority 28% where 56% of philosophers [not tom, dick or harry] are moral realists.

Your not realising that you need help - that your reasoning is faulty and your argument unsound - is your main problem. But though you may be impervious to reason, others following this argument at least can weigh up the issues - so they may find it useful.

And who cares what the majority of philosophers think? For most of our history, most philosophers have assumed uncritically that abstract things exist - or at least are things that therefore may or may not exist - which is a metaphysical delusion. Being wrong on a massive scale is a philosophical pastime.

In terms of moral objectivity, what I have claimed as moral facts are testable with repeatable results with similar results.
There are many ways to do the test.
For a start you can do the test yourself.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 10:22 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:43 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:28 am

Your not realising that you need help - that your reasoning is faulty and your argument unsound - is your main problem. But though you may be impervious to reason, others following this argument at least can weigh up the issues - so they may find it useful.

And who cares what the majority of philosophers think? For most of our history, most philosophers have assumed uncritically that abstract things exist - or at least are things that therefore may or may not exist - which is a metaphysical delusion. Being wrong on a massive scale is a philosophical pastime.

In terms of moral objectivity, what I have claimed as moral facts are testable with repeatable results with similar results.
There are many ways to do the test.
For a start you can do the test yourself.

Please set out the procedure for empirically testing a moral fact. Any one will do.

• 1. Will you volunteer to kill yourself?...................Yes/No
  1. Do you want to be killed by another or other humans? Yes/No
  2. Would you kill another human being unconditionally*? Yes/No
  3. Should humans kill humans unconditionally*?.............Yes/No
  
  We can also include a "intensity" rating 1[low]- 9 [high] to the above.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 11:00 am Without aiming for a comprehensive list we may say of moral people that they

1. have right ideas

2. are compliant with the right authority

3. are socialised into a good society and its predominant belief culture

4. are of sound mind without criminally psychotic tendencies.

Question: can we say the same of historians?

Yes, we can say the same of historians. This is because a) nobody has ever lived outside of some culture of belief and b) all cultures of belief and of (FSBs) and knowledge (FSKs) are structured by power relations.

Humans are unlike other animals whether those other animals are bred according to artificial selection or whether those other animals are bred according to natural selection. The battle for how humans breed is ongoing and is largely political power struggle between the forces of power and authority on one hand and , on the other hand, the forces of freedom of individuals to expand our knowledge . If there is an essence of humanity that essence is freedom to grow independently towards mercy , pity, peace, and love.

The axiom that underlies the above ethics is life is better than death.

• Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 5:02 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 10:22 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:43 am
In terms of moral objectivity, what I have claimed as moral facts are testable with repeatable results with similar results.
There are many ways to do the test.
For a start you can do the test yourself.

Please set out the procedure for empirically testing a moral fact. Any one will do.

I have already explained the methods many times.
As I had stated there are many ways to verify and justify a moral fact.

The easiest method which can be an expansive task is to a survey of an effective population sampling of normal people by asking the following questions;

• 1. Will you volunteer to kill yourself?...................Yes/No
  1. Do you want to be killed by another or other humans? Yes/No
  2. Would you kill another human being unconditionally*? Yes/No
  3. Should humans kill humans unconditionally*?.............Yes/No
  
  We can also include a "intensity" rating 1[low]- 9 [high] to the above.

* at present there are conditional situations where humans killing of humans are acceptable by a percentage [not all] of people, but this is not morality per se, e.g. in political laws, etc.

You should answer the above questions to establish a personal conviction,
then you can ask those you can trust be give more sincere answers, i.e. those closest to you,
then you can do a survey of an effective sampling representing all humans in the world.
With the internet, this is very possible and it can be done progressively with samples that include more and more people of the 7+ billion people. Those that are certified as not normal will be excluded.

From our database of public knowledge from humans first emerged, the answers to all the above questions of the above survey will most likely to be an emphatic "No" with high intensity.
There may be a small % who answer 'YES' but they are most likely to be abnormal upon further diagnostic by psychologists and psychiatrists in accordance to the DSM-V.

Note there are many more methods and processes to verify and justify the existence of the moral facts within the moral FSR/FSK to support and confirm the expected answers to the above question, i.e. all answers are 'NO' with high intensity.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 5:16 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 11:00 am Without aiming for a comprehensive list we may say of moral people that they

1. have right ideas

2. are compliant with the right authority

3. are socialised into a good society and its predominant belief culture

4. are of sound mind without criminally psychotic tendencies.

Question: can we say the same of historians?

Yes, we can say the same of historians. This is because a) nobody has ever lived outside of some culture of belief and b) all cultures of belief and of (FSBs) and knowledge (FSKs) are structured by power relations.

Humans are unlike other animals whether those other animals are bred according to artificial selection or whether those other animals are bred according to natural selection. The battle for how humans breed is ongoing and is largely political power struggle between the forces of power and authority on one hand and , on the other hand, the forces of freedom of individuals to expand our knowledge . If there is an essence of humanity that essence is freedom to grow independently towards mercy , pity, peace, and love.

The axiom that underlies the above ethics is life is better than death.

The above is intuitively and conventionally true.

Your ethical axiom can be reinforced as 'universally life is better than death' [at least till the inevitable] which is merely to be used as a moral guide only. Otherwise people like Hitler will insist life is better than death for "us" but not for "them".
Theists will insist on eternal life than death or eternal death and kill others who do not agree with them.

If you want to rely on axiom, Kant's Categorical Imperative would be more universal and effective, i.e.

• Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

But to establish whatever claim as moral facts, we need sound verification and justification of the above claims from within a moral FSR/FSK.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 9:13 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 5:02 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 10:22 am
Please set out the procedure for empirically testing a moral fact. Any one will do.

I have already explained the methods many times.
As I had stated there are many ways to verify and justify a moral fact.

The easiest method which can be an expansive task is to a survey of an effective population sampling of normal people by asking the following questions;

• 1. Will you volunteer to kill yourself?...................Yes/No
  1. Do you want to be killed by another or other humans? Yes/No
  2. Would you kill another human being unconditionally*? Yes/No
  3. Should humans kill humans unconditionally*?.............Yes/No
  
  We can also include a "intensity" rating 1[low]- 9 [high] to the above.

* at present there are conditional situations where humans killing of humans are acceptable by a percentage [not all] of people, but this is not morality per se, e.g. in political laws, etc.

You should answer the above questions to establish a personal conviction,
then you can ask those you can trust be give more sincere answers, i.e. those closest to you,
then you can do a survey of an effective sampling representing all humans in the world.
With the internet, this is very possible and it can be done progressively with samples that include more and more people of the 7+ billion people. Those that are certified as not normal will be excluded.

From our database of public knowledge from humans first emerged, the answers to all the above questions of the above survey will most likely to be an emphatic "No" with high intensity.
There may be a small % who answer 'YES' but they are most likely to be abnormal upon further diagnostic by psychologists and psychiatrists in accordance to the DSM-V.

Note there are many more methods and processes to verify and justify the existence of the moral facts within the moral FSR/FSK to support and confirm the expected answers to the above question, i.e. all answers are 'NO' with high intensity.

So we test for the existence of [the moral wrongness of humans killing humans] - the moral fact that you claim exists - by asking people if they want to kill themselves, to be killed, or to kill others. And their answers may produce factual premises, as follows.

1 People don't want to kill themselves.
2 People don't want to be killed.
3 People don't want to kill others.

Now, even if people rank the intensity of their feeling, none of these premises entails, induces or abduces the conclusion: therefore humans killing humans is morally wrong. That conclusion DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM THOSE PREMISES. So your fake empirical test would fail to establish your conclusion. As a research proposal, it would be thrown out with contempt.

And your last question - should humans kill humans unconditionally? - asks for a moral opinion, leading to the astounding conclusion: people think humans killing humans unconditionally is morally wrong; therefore it's morally wrong.

Now, try to read and think about it very carefully.

If it's a moral fact that humans killing humans is morally wrong, then what people do or don't want to do or have done to them is irrelevant. And the same goes for any of your fake moral facts.

I doubt you'll remember this failure. You'll probably drone on about the need to empirically verify a supposed moral fact, and you'll claim that you've done this a thousand times. What's great about being a goldfish is that everything's always wonderfully new.

• -that the majority of people do not willy-nilly kill humans and
  
  -that there is a positive trend in the increase and exponential increase in human population since humans first emerged.
  
  -that to all normal humans, the killings of humans by humans is the most abhorrent evil act which is verifiable to the database of recorded knowledge.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 6:49 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 9:13 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 5:02 am
I have already explained the methods many times.
As I had stated there are many ways to verify and justify a moral fact.

The easiest method which can be an expansive task is to a survey of an effective population sampling of normal people by asking the following questions;

• 1. Will you volunteer to kill yourself?...................Yes/No
  1. Do you want to be killed by another or other humans? Yes/No
  2. Would you kill another human being unconditionally*? Yes/No
  3. Should humans kill humans unconditionally*?.............Yes/No
  
  We can also include a "intensity" rating 1[low]- 9 [high] to the above.

* at present there are conditional situations where humans killing of humans are acceptable by a percentage [not all] of people, but this is not morality per se, e.g. in political laws, etc.

You should answer the above questions to establish a personal conviction,
then you can ask those you can trust be give more sincere answers, i.e. those closest to you,
then you can do a survey of an effective sampling representing all humans in the world.
With the internet, this is very possible and it can be done progressively with samples that include more and more people of the 7+ billion people. Those that are certified as not normal will be excluded.

From our database of public knowledge from humans first emerged, the answers to all the above questions of the above survey will most likely to be an emphatic "No" with high intensity.
There may be a small % who answer 'YES' but they are most likely to be abnormal upon further diagnostic by psychologists and psychiatrists in accordance to the DSM-V.

Note there are many more methods and processes to verify and justify the existence of the moral facts within the moral FSR/FSK to support and confirm the expected answers to the above question, i.e. all answers are 'NO' with high intensity.

So we test for the existence of [the moral wrongness of humans killing humans] - the moral fact that you claim exists - by asking people if they want to kill themselves, to be killed, or to kill others. And their answers may produce factual premises, as follows.

1 People don't want to kill themselves.
2 People don't want to be killed.
3 People don't want to kill others.

Now, even if people rank the intensity of their feeling, none of these premises entails, induces or abduces the conclusion: therefore humans killing humans is morally wrong. That conclusion DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM THOSE PREMISES. So your fake empirical test would fail to establish your conclusion. As a research proposal, it would be thrown out with contempt.

And your last question - should humans kill humans unconditionally? - asks for a moral opinion, leading to the astounding conclusion: people think humans killing humans unconditionally is morally wrong; therefore it's morally wrong.

Now, try to read and think about it very carefully.

If it's a moral fact that humans killing humans is morally wrong, then what people do or don't want to do or have done to them is irrelevant. And the same goes for any of your fake moral facts.

I doubt you'll remember this failure. You'll probably drone on about the need to empirically verify a supposed moral fact, and you'll claim that you've done this a thousand times. What's great about being a goldfish is that everything's always wonderfully new.

Note my emphasis above.
There are many ways to test for the existence of the moral fact mentioned above. As usual you ignore the point and hastily started your condemnation blindly and ignorantly.

What I had presented is one of the easiest inductive method to confirm the existence of the moral fact. This method is very popular within the social sciences where the results are qualified to the methods and its limitations.

In this case, a response by an [one] individual person to a moral question is an opinion or belief which is subjective.
But getting the same answer from 7+ billion or a critical mass of normal individual person within a moral FSK would tantamount and qualify it to be objective, i.e. intersubjective consensus which is how scientific facts as objective are arrived at.

The conclusion of a moral fact within the moral FSK can be further verified and justified empirical results as a consequence of the real moral fact based on the empirical facts;

• -that the majority of people do not willy-nilly kill humans and
  
  -that there is a positive trend in the increase and exponential increase in human population since humans first emerged.
  
  -that to all normal humans, the killings of humans by humans is the most abhorrent evil act which is verifiable to the database of recorded knowledge.

Thus besides the many other methods of verification, justification, testing and confirmation of the theory, the above easy method is sufficient to confirm my theory that moral facts exists is true, thus objective within a moral FSK.