There are Moral Facts

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:



But these are not "similar principles".

You have not implied any causal connection regarding M1 but you have implied causal connection regarding B1.

The logical form of B1 is 'if--then' ; it's a conditional. M1 is not a conditional; it's an unsubstantiated assertion.

I have explained the details elsewhere.

I have introduced the concept of specific Frameworks and System of Knowledge [FSK] which generate their specific specific facts.
Example, the scientific FSK generate scientific facts, the legal FSK generate legal facts, and so on.
You will note the legal FSK take in scientific facts and process them with other sources of facts to generate their specific legal fact.
Similarly the moral FSK will also take [input] scientific facts, in this case the Biological fact,i.e. B1 and generate M1 via its processes.

Moreover a "neural algorithm" might be learned not acquired genetically. Even if some "neural algorithm" is inherent in every human being's personality it does not follow the algorithm is a reality apart from human psyches.

I am arguing the moral function [moral sense] is inherent thus is of 'nature' and influence by nurture later.
As Hume has argued, the moral sense is similar to the basic-5-senses inherent in all humans.
Just as the basic-5-senses are biological facts and facts of other FSK [psychology, others?] thus are a reality, the moral sense and its algorithm is also a fact [moral] of reality within ALL humans.

I too believe moral sense is natural. Man's being a social animal is natural. For social animals the moral sense is a necessity, and if any human becomes an unsocialised adult they will probably be a criminal law breaker, as the law follows the prevailing mores of the society.

About the moral sense as inherent; the moral sense is a potential which has to be nurtured in a family or other nurturing institution for it to become active. Possibly ideas of simple fairness will develop in the young child without socialisation however as far as I can recall the jury is still out on that question.

The nurturing factors will be an effective catalyst to trigger the realization of the inherent moral potential.
Else it will unfold naturally due to the inherent constitution* of the person which at present is relative at 'tortoise pace'.
*Example, intelligence is also a potential in all humans, but some people are naturally intelligent without much coaching -the born genius, while others need coaching and guidance.

One point is the inherent moral potential is a Johnny-come-lately in terms of evolution and is unfolding TOO slowly to meet up with the trend of exponential expansion of knowledge and technology. Note the length of time, humanity went through to achieve the moral progress in slavery of the present since the early slaves suffered, must be >50,000 ->10,000 years ago.

This is why there is an urgency to understand the mechanics [neural, biological, psychological, social, etc.] of the inherent moral potential and humanity to find foolproof [this is critical] approaches to expedite the unfoldment of the moral potential within the average and majority of people.

[Belinda]

I have explained the details elsewhere.

I have introduced the concept of specific Frameworks and System of Knowledge [FSK] which generate their specific specific facts.
Example, the scientific FSK generate scientific facts, the legal FSK generate legal facts, and so on.
You will note the legal FSK take in scientific facts and process them with other sources of facts to generate their specific legal fact.
Similarly the moral FSK will also take [input] scientific facts, in this case the Biological fact,i.e. B1 and generate M1 via its processes.


I am arguing the moral function [moral sense] is inherent thus is of 'nature' and influence by nurture later.
As Hume has argued, the moral sense is similar to the basic-5-senses inherent in all humans.
Just as the basic-5-senses are biological facts and facts of other FSK [psychology, others?] thus are a reality, the moral sense and its algorithm is also a fact [moral] of reality within ALL humans.

I too believe moral sense is natural. Man's being a social animal is natural. For social animals the moral sense is a necessity, and if any human becomes an unsocialised adult they will probably be a criminal law breaker, as the law follows the prevailing mores of the society.

About the moral sense as inherent; the moral sense is a potential which has to be nurtured in a family or other nurturing institution for it to become active. Possibly ideas of simple fairness will develop in the young child without socialisation however as far as I can recall the jury is still out on that question.

The nurturing factors will be an effective catalyst to trigger the realization of the inherent moral potential.
Else it will unfold naturally due to the inherent constitution* of the person which at present is relative at 'tortoise pace'.
*Example, intelligence is also a potential in all humans, but some people are naturally intelligent without much coaching -the born genius, while others need coaching and guidance.

One point is the inherent moral potential is a Johnny-come-lately in terms of evolution and is unfolding TOO slowly to meet up with the trend of exponential expansion of knowledge and technology. Note the length of time, humanity went through to achieve the moral progress in slavery of the present since the early slaves suffered, must be >50,000 ->10,000 years ago.

This is why there is an urgency to understand the mechanics [neural, biological, psychological, social, etc.] of the inherent moral potential and humanity to find foolproof [this is critical] approaches to expedite the unfoldment of the moral potential within the average and majority of people.

I disagree. Every child needs socialisation and education otherwise they will become intellectually disabled adults. They won't be able to read and write, or count to twelve.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I too believe moral sense is natural. Man's being a social animal is natural. For social animals the moral sense is a necessity, and if any human becomes an unsocialised adult they will probably be a criminal law breaker, as the law follows the prevailing mores of the society.

About the moral sense as inherent; the moral sense is a potential which has to be nurtured in a family or other nurturing institution for it to become active. Possibly ideas of simple fairness will develop in the young child without socialisation however as far as I can recall the jury is still out on that question.

The nurturing factors will be an effective catalyst to trigger the realization of the inherent moral potential.
Else it will unfold naturally due to the inherent constitution* of the person which at present is relative at 'tortoise pace'.
*Example, intelligence is also a potential in all humans, but some people are naturally intelligent without much coaching -the born genius, while others need coaching and guidance.

One point is the inherent moral potential is a Johnny-come-lately in terms of evolution and is unfolding TOO slowly to meet up with the trend of exponential expansion of knowledge and technology. Note the length of time, humanity went through to achieve the moral progress in slavery of the present since the early slaves suffered, must be >50,000 ->10,000 years ago.

This is why there is an urgency to understand the mechanics [neural, biological, psychological, social, etc.] of the inherent moral potential and humanity to find foolproof [this is critical] approaches to expedite the unfoldment of the moral potential within the average and majority of people.

I disagree. Every child needs socialisation and education otherwise they will become intellectually disabled adults. They won't be able to read and write, or count to twelve.

What is there to disagree? Seem you have missed my point.
I agree with the need for socialization and education.

Re morality, I wrote and I implied,

Some are born with a natural high moral intuition competence [analogy to intellect],
"while others need coaching and guidance"

For example Henry Quirk he is intuitive and on target re the moral fact on slavery without reading any book are making any formal argument for it.

[Belinda]

The nurturing factors will be an effective catalyst to trigger the realization of the inherent moral potential.
Else it will unfold naturally due to the inherent constitution* of the person which at present is relative at 'tortoise pace'.
*Example, intelligence is also a potential in all humans, but some people are naturally intelligent without much coaching -the born genius, while others need coaching and guidance.

One point is the inherent moral potential is a Johnny-come-lately in terms of evolution and is unfolding TOO slowly to meet up with the trend of exponential expansion of knowledge and technology. Note the length of time, humanity went through to achieve the moral progress in slavery of the present since the early slaves suffered, must be >50,000 ->10,000 years ago.

This is why there is an urgency to understand the mechanics [neural, biological, psychological, social, etc.] of the inherent moral potential and humanity to find foolproof [this is critical] approaches to expedite the unfoldment of the moral potential within the average and majority of people.

I disagree. Every child needs socialisation and education otherwise they will become intellectually disabled adults. They won't be able to read and write, or count to twelve.

What is there to disagree? Seem you have missed my point.
I agree with the need for socialization and education.

Re morality, I wrote and I implied,

Some are born with a natural high moral intuition competence [analogy to intellect],
"while others need coaching and guidance"

For example Henry Quirk he is intuitive and on target re the moral fact on slavery without reading any book are making any formal argument for it.

What! Henry Quirk as the Noble Savage?
Maybe Henry does not rationalise but that does not mean he is an alien.
Everyone needs "coaching and guidance" if by that you mean socialisation. I bet you would find Henry has been socialised by parents, teachers, and peer group

[Veritas Aequitas]

I disagree. Every child needs socialisation and education otherwise they will become intellectually disabled adults. They won't be able to read and write, or count to twelve.

What is there to disagree? Seem you have missed my point.
I agree with the need for socialization and education.

Re morality, I wrote and I implied,

Some are born with a natural high moral intuition competence [analogy to intellect],
"while others need coaching and guidance"

For example Henry Quirk he is intuitive and on target re the moral fact on slavery without reading any book are making any formal argument for it.

What! Henry Quirk as the Noble Savage?
Maybe Henry does not rationalise but that does not mean he is an alien.
Everyone needs "coaching and guidance" if by that you mean socialisation. I bet you would find Henry has been socialised by parents, teachers, and peer group

In nurturing and socializing, parents, teachers, and peer group will lead by examples, give instructions, provide advice, information, guidance, wisdom, etc. but the individual [unless brainwashed by blind faith] still have to justify and judge for himself whether the above are morally right or wrong.
The main methods used are either via reason or intuition.

[Peter Holmes]

Just to point something out.

This discussion has been about why people have moral beliefs. Candidate answers are: social conditioning, innate programming, the 'moral sense', intuition - and so on. So, for example, people believe slavery is morally wrong for one or more of these or other reasons.

But none these explanations addresses the OP claim: there are moral facts. The fact that people have a moral belief does not mean the moral belief is a fact - a true factual assertion. People used to believe slavery is not morally wrong. Did that mean 'slavery is not morally wrong' was a fact?

As ever, I wonder why this is so hard to understand.

[Belinda]

Just to point something out.

This discussion has been about why people have moral beliefs. Candidate answers are: social conditioning, innate programming, the 'moral sense', intuition - and so on. So, for example, people believe slavery is morally wrong for one or more of these or other reasons.

But none these explanations addresses the OP claim: there are moral facts. The fact that people have a moral belief does not mean the moral belief is a fact - a true factual assertion. People used to believe slavery is not morally wrong. Did that mean 'slavery is not morally wrong' was a fact?

As ever, I wonder why this is so hard to understand.

There is a case to be argued that healthy social animals are all born with certain abilities. These abilities include , arguably, language , maternal, sexual , fear/aggressive, and awe.

Veritas Aequitas would include reasoning in the list of inherent abilities.

In nurturing and socializing, parents, teachers, and peer group will lead by examples, give instructions, provide advice, information, guidance, wisdom, etc. but the individual [unless brainwashed by blind faith] still have to justify and judge for himself whether the above are morally right or wrong.
The main methods used are either via reason or intuition.

(above quoted from Veritas Aequitas)

I agree with V A in a way. I think all animals including humans that are capable of learning from experience are capable of learning via inductive reason; that is how we train dogs, and most humans can learn more creatively than most dogs. I also agree with V A morality is a product of reasoning.


To what extent is ability to reason a matter of nurturing by others? No genuinely feral child would have learned any actual language, but I claim unless the child was autistic i.e. abnormal the child would try to communicate somehow with other people or other animals. Similarly no entirely feral child would have learned any special moral tenet such as "It's wrong to kill another child". Such a child's inherent moral ability would not have developed at all unless at the very least the child had lived among other intelligent animals and learned their beliefs and practices.On the other hand I think an entirely feral child would respond to thirst by drinking, and respond to hunger by eating.

Alll this I agree fails to address Peter's question

But none these explanations addresses the OP claim: there are moral facts.

That is true. My basic criterion for what is a fact is a fact is what exists in nature.
So there are moral facts, however the origin of any and all moral facts is nature. There is no authority for morality higher, or more reasonable, or better in any way than the authority of men ("God help us!" She adds ironically).

[Peter Holmes]

Just to point something out.

This discussion has been about why people have moral beliefs. Candidate answers are: social conditioning, innate programming, the 'moral sense', intuition - and so on. So, for example, people believe slavery is morally wrong for one or more of these or other reasons.

But none these explanations addresses the OP claim: there are moral facts. The fact that people have a moral belief does not mean the moral belief is a fact - a true factual assertion. People used to believe slavery is not morally wrong. Did that mean 'slavery is not morally wrong' was a fact?

As ever, I wonder why this is so hard to understand.

There is a case to be argued that healthy social animals are all born with certain abilities. These abilities include , arguably, language , maternal, sexual , fear/aggressive, and awe.

Veritas Aequitas would include reasoning in the list of inherent abilities.

In nurturing and socializing, parents, teachers, and peer group will lead by examples, give instructions, provide advice, information, guidance, wisdom, etc. but the individual [unless brainwashed by blind faith] still have to justify and judge for himself whether the above are morally right or wrong.
The main methods used are either via reason or intuition.

(above quoted from Veritas Aequitas)

I agree with V A in a way. I think all animals including humans that are capable of learning from experience are capable of learning via inductive reason; that is how we train dogs, and most humans can learn more creatively than most dogs. I also agree with V A morality is a product of reasoning.


To what extent is ability to reason a matter of nurturing by others? No genuinely feral child would have learned any actual language, but I claim unless the child was autistic i.e. abnormal the child would try to communicate somehow with other people or other animals. Similarly no entirely feral child would have learned any special moral tenet such as "It's wrong to kill another child". Such a child's inherent moral ability would not have developed at all unless at the very least the child had lived among other intelligent animals and learned their beliefs and practices.On the other hand I think an entirely feral child would respond to thirst by drinking, and respond to hunger by eating.

Alll this I agree fails to address Peter's question

But none these explanations addresses the OP claim: there are moral facts.

That is true. My basic criterion for what is a fact is a fact is what exists in nature.
So there are moral facts, however the origin of any and all moral facts is nature. There is no authority for morality higher, or more reasonable, or better in any way than the authority of men ("God help us!" She adds ironically).

Thanks. If a fact is what exists in nature, what and where is a moral fact in nature?

Humans may behave in certain ways for certain reasons - and those are facts. But that humans should behave in those or other ways isn't something that exists in nature. There's no 'ought' in nature. It just is the way it is.

In other words, I don't understand your argument: a fact is what exists in nature; therefore, there are moral facts.

[Belinda]

Just to point something out.

This discussion has been about why people have moral beliefs. Candidate answers are: social conditioning, innate programming, the 'moral sense', intuition - and so on. So, for example, people believe slavery is morally wrong for one or more of these or other reasons.

But none these explanations addresses the OP claim: there are moral facts. The fact that people have a moral belief does not mean the moral belief is a fact - a true factual assertion. People used to believe slavery is not morally wrong. Did that mean 'slavery is not morally wrong' was a fact?

As ever, I wonder why this is so hard to understand.

There is a case to be argued that healthy social animals are all born with certain abilities. These abilities include , arguably, language , maternal, sexual , fear/aggressive, and awe.

Veritas Aequitas would include reasoning in the list of inherent abilities.

In nurturing and socializing, parents, teachers, and peer group will lead by examples, give instructions, provide advice, information, guidance, wisdom, etc. but the individual [unless brainwashed by blind faith] still have to justify and judge for himself whether the above are morally right or wrong.
The main methods used are either via reason or intuition.

(above quoted from Veritas Aequitas)

I agree with V A in a way. I think all animals including humans that are capable of learning from experience are capable of learning via inductive reason; that is how we train dogs, and most humans can learn more creatively than most dogs. I also agree with V A morality is a product of reasoning.


To what extent is ability to reason a matter of nurturing by others? No genuinely feral child would have learned any actual language, but I claim unless the child was autistic i.e. abnormal the child would try to communicate somehow with other people or other animals. Similarly no entirely feral child would have learned any special moral tenet such as "It's wrong to kill another child". Such a child's inherent moral ability would not have developed at all unless at the very least the child had lived among other intelligent animals and learned their beliefs and practices.On the other hand I think an entirely feral child would respond to thirst by drinking, and respond to hunger by eating.

Alll this I agree fails to address Peter's question

But none these explanations addresses the OP claim: there are moral facts.

That is true. My basic criterion for what is a fact is a fact is what exists in nature.
So there are moral facts, however the origin of any and all moral facts is nature. There is no authority for morality higher, or more reasonable, or better in any way than the authority of men ("God help us!" She adds ironically).

Thanks. If a fact is what exists in nature, what and where is a moral fact in nature?

Humans may behave in certain ways for certain reasons - and those are facts. But that humans should behave in those or other ways isn't something that exists in nature. There's no 'ought' in nature. It just is the way it is.

In other words, I don't understand your argument: a fact is what exists in nature; therefore, there are moral facts.

Yes, I should have included my answer to your objection in your last paragraph.The buck stops at metaphysical ontology. In other words, I believe nothing exists in itself except nature. (Nature of course includes people, but not supernatural forms of being)

[Peter Holmes]

Humans may behave in certain ways for certain reasons - and those are facts. But that humans should behave in those or other ways isn't something that exists in nature. There's no 'ought' in nature. It just is the way it is.

In other words, I don't understand your argument: a fact is what exists in nature; therefore, there are moral facts.

Yes, I should have included my answer to your objection in your last paragraph.The buck stops at metaphysical ontology. In other words, I believe nothing exists in itself except nature. (Nature of course includes people, but not supernatural forms of being)

I agree with you as to what exists. But what things in nature are the moral things that you claim exist?

For example, slavery exists in nature. It's what I call a feature of reality. So the factual assertion 'slavery exists' is true - what we also call a fact.

But you say there are moral facts, so that the moral wrongness of slavery exists in nature, and the moral assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' is true.

So what and where is the moral wrongness of slavery? Where and how does it exist in nature? (The belief that slavery is morally wrong obviously exists, as did the belief that slavery is not morally wrong.)

[Belinda]

Humans may behave in certain ways for certain reasons - and those are facts. But that humans should behave in those or other ways isn't something that exists in nature. There's no 'ought' in nature. It just is the way it is.

In other words, I don't understand your argument: a fact is what exists in nature; therefore, there are moral facts.

Yes, I should have included my answer to your objection in your last paragraph.The buck stops at metaphysical ontology. In other words, I believe nothing exists in itself except nature. (Nature of course includes people, but not supernatural forms of being)

I agree with you as to what exists. But what things in nature are the moral things that you claim exist?

For example, slavery exists in nature. It's what I call a feature of reality. So the factual assertion 'slavery exists' is true - what we also call a fact.

But you say there are moral facts, so that the moral wrongness of slavery exists in nature, and the moral assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' is true.

So what and where is the moral wrongness of slavery? Where and how does it exist in nature? (The belief that slavery is morally wrong obviously exists, as did the belief that slavery is not morally wrong.)

I think I said morality exists in nature and also moral facts exist in nature, but and it's an important but, that moral facts such as 'slavery is wrong', exist in nature does not imply nature itself is right or wrong, or that moral facts can be judged as right or wrong except as men judge them to be right or wrong. That something exists in nature and that existing in nature= factual does not imply that men's claims are eternal truths .

All the things of nature are necessary (I am a determinist) but I am also fallible and subjective like everyone else, so what I believe is a moral fact and what I believe is a fact of physical dimensions are also fallible and subjective, no matter however many or few people agree with me.

My predilection for nature as where the buck stops is not an eternal truth but is relative to who believes it.

[Peter Holmes]

Yes, I should have included my answer to your objection in your last paragraph.The buck stops at metaphysical ontology. In other words, I believe nothing exists in itself except nature. (Nature of course includes people, but not supernatural forms of being)

I agree with you as to what exists. But what things in nature are the moral things that you claim exist?

For example, slavery exists in nature. It's what I call a feature of reality. So the factual assertion 'slavery exists' is true - what we also call a fact.

But you say there are moral facts, so that the moral wrongness of slavery exists in nature, and the moral assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' is true.

So what and where is the moral wrongness of slavery? Where and how does it exist in nature? (The belief that slavery is morally wrong obviously exists, as did the belief that slavery is not morally wrong.)

I think I said morality exists in nature and also moral facts exist in nature, but and it's an important but, that moral facts such as 'slavery is wrong', exist in nature does not imply nature itself is right or wrong, or that moral facts can be judged as right or wrong except as men judge them to be right or wrong. That something exists in nature and that existing in nature= factual does not imply that men's claims are eternal truths .

All the things of nature are necessary (I am a determinist) but I am also fallible and subjective like everyone else, so what I believe is a moral fact and what I believe is a fact of physical dimensions are also fallible and subjective, no matter however many or few people agree with me.

My predilection for nature as where the buck stops is not an eternal truth but is relative to who believes it.

Thanks, Belinda, but I'm still confused. You say a fact is a thing that exists in nature. So in what way is the moral wrongness of slavery a thing that exists in nature?

And if, as you say, the moral wrongness of slavery is a thing that exists in nature, our judgement would be irrelevant. It would have no bearing on the existence of the moral wrongness of slavery, any more than it has a bearing on the existence of any other thing that exists in nature.

I think this is all nonsense. Moral rightness and wrongness are obviously not things that exist in nature. Rather, to say a thing is morally right or wrong is to express a moral judgement about a thing that exists in nature - a thing such as slavery. And this is patently obvious.

[Belinda]

I agree with you as to what exists. But what things in nature are the moral things that you claim exist?

For example, slavery exists in nature. It's what I call a feature of reality. So the factual assertion 'slavery exists' is true - what we also call a fact.

But you say there are moral facts, so that the moral wrongness of slavery exists in nature, and the moral assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' is true.

So what and where is the moral wrongness of slavery? Where and how does it exist in nature? (The belief that slavery is morally wrong obviously exists, as did the belief that slavery is not morally wrong.)

I think I said morality exists in nature and also moral facts exist in nature, but and it's an important but, that moral facts such as 'slavery is wrong', exist in nature does not imply nature itself is right or wrong, or that moral facts can be judged as right or wrong except as men judge them to be right or wrong. That something exists in nature and that existing in nature= factual does not imply that men's claims are eternal truths .

All the things of nature are necessary (I am a determinist) but I am also fallible and subjective like everyone else, so what I believe is a moral fact and what I believe is a fact of physical dimensions are also fallible and subjective, no matter however many or few people agree with me.

My predilection for nature as where the buck stops is not an eternal truth but is relative to who believes it.

Thanks, Belinda, but I'm still confused. You say a fact is a thing that exists in nature. So in what way is the moral wrongness of slavery a thing that exists in nature?

And if, as you say, the moral wrongness of slavery is a thing that exists in nature, our judgement would be irrelevant. It would have no bearing on the existence of the moral wrongness of slavery, any more than it has a bearing on the existence of any other thing that exists in nature.

I think this is all nonsense. Moral rightness and wrongness are obviously not things that exist in nature. Rather, to say a thing is morally right or wrong is to express a moral judgement about a thing that exists in nature - a thing such as slavery. And this is patently obvious.

Every concept and belief of every person exists in nature. Every feeling about rightness or wrongness of slavery exists in nature. Dreams and halllucinations exist in nature. All feelings exist in nature. All judgments exist in nature. There is nothing that exists that does not exist in nature.

Some judgments are better than other judgements because the better judgements are more reasoned and more knowledgeable. Claims that slavery is wrong are better than claims that slavery is right, and this is because there is well reasoned and experienced judgement, and more and wider accurate knowledge that support claims that slavery is wrong.

Our judgements matter because we humans have conscious intentions and are able to make things happen. Because humans can exercise judgement and reason it's our duty to nature and to ourselves to improve our knowledge, experience, and judgement.

There is no judgement, or knowledge outside of nature , and since our remit is limited to humans there is no judgement or knowledge that is not human judgement and knowledge.Therefore the moral wrongness of slavery of slavery and the moral rightness of slavery each exist in nature however the moral wrongness of slavery is a better judgement than the moral rightness of slavery.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think I said morality exists in nature and also moral facts exist in nature, but and it's an important but, that moral facts such as 'slavery is wrong', exist in nature does not imply nature itself is right or wrong, or that moral facts can be judged as right or wrong except as men judge them to be right or wrong. That something exists in nature and that existing in nature= factual does not imply that men's claims are eternal truths .

All the things of nature are necessary (I am a determinist) but I am also fallible and subjective like everyone else, so what I believe is a moral fact and what I believe is a fact of physical dimensions are also fallible and subjective, no matter however many or few people agree with me.

My predilection for nature as where the buck stops is not an eternal truth but is relative to who believes it.

Thanks, Belinda, but I'm still confused. You say a fact is a thing that exists in nature. So in what way is the moral wrongness of slavery a thing that exists in nature?

And if, as you say, the moral wrongness of slavery is a thing that exists in nature, our judgement would be irrelevant. It would have no bearing on the existence of the moral wrongness of slavery, any more than it has a bearing on the existence of any other thing that exists in nature.

I think this is all nonsense. Moral rightness and wrongness are obviously not things that exist in nature. Rather, to say a thing is morally right or wrong is to express a moral judgement about a thing that exists in nature - a thing such as slavery. And this is patently obvious.

Every concept and belief of every person exists in nature. Every feeling about rightness or wrongness of slavery exists in nature. Dreams and halllucinations exist in nature. All feelings exist in nature. All judgments exist in nature. There is nothing that exists that does not exist in nature.

Some judgments are better than other judgements because the better judgements are more reasoned and more knowledgeable. Claims that slavery is wrong are better than claims that slavery is right, and this is because there is well reasoned and experienced judgement, and more and wider accurate knowledge that support claims that slavery is wrong.

Our judgements matter because we humans have conscious intentions and are able to make things happen. Because humans can exercise judgement and reason it's our duty to nature and to ourselves to improve our knowledge, experience, and judgement.

There is no judgement, or knowledge outside of nature , and since our remit is limited to humans there is no judgement or knowledge that is not human judgement and knowledge.Therefore the moral wrongness of slavery of slavery and the moral rightness of slavery each exist in nature however the moral wrongness of slavery is a better judgement than the moral rightness of slavery.

Wow.. that is a great answer.

One point is the moral facts [within a moral FSK] of ought and ought-not are inbuilt within nature, i.e. human nature.

• For example, DNA/DNA wise all humans are "programmed" with the ought-not to touch things within certain degrees of hotness or be exposed to heat in excess of what is bearable by any normal human being.
  This 'ought-not' in relation to heat is programmed via a complex neural algorithm [pain, emotions, motion, reflex actions, etc.] that is connected with the sense of touch, sight, and perhaps smell [burnt] or even hearing [thunder and the raging of fires].
  
  Whilst the ought-not of heat is inherent in all humans, if this is not activated instinctively, the person will soon learn from experience of what degree of heat must be avoided to avoid endangering their life.
  So avoiding hot objects is not purely learning from experience [nurturing], but the underlying factor is the inherent [nature] ought-not regarding heat.
  
  Obviously the above is a fact of nature, i.e. human nature

The above example is similar to the moral ought and ought-not.
I have justified the moral fact,
"all humans ought-not to kill another"
is programmed as a neural algorithm within all human beings.
Since this is a very critical moral ought-not, this instinct is very strong in the majority of people, thus easily triggering their intuition on this issue.

For a percentile of humans, the above ought-not "program" is not very active or had been damaged [e.g. psychopaths] thus they are prone to kill, but that do not mean the moral ought-not to kill 'program' is not existing within them.

What I am doing is using reason to abstract the above moral fact from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning and to justify the existence of the above moral ought-not or ought [depending on how we phrase it] within nature, i.e. human nature.

So I agree with your point "every concept and belief of every person exists in nature", there are moral facts with nature, i.e. human nature [as justified to be true].

[Peter Holmes]

Thanks, Belinda, but I'm still confused. You say a fact is a thing that exists in nature. So in what way is the moral wrongness of slavery a thing that exists in nature?

And if, as you say, the moral wrongness of slavery is a thing that exists in nature, our judgement would be irrelevant. It would have no bearing on the existence of the moral wrongness of slavery, any more than it has a bearing on the existence of any other thing that exists in nature.

I think this is all nonsense. Moral rightness and wrongness are obviously not things that exist in nature. Rather, to say a thing is morally right or wrong is to express a moral judgement about a thing that exists in nature - a thing such as slavery. And this is patently obvious.

Every concept and belief of every person exists in nature. Every feeling about rightness or wrongness of slavery exists in nature. Dreams and halllucinations exist in nature. All feelings exist in nature. All judgments exist in nature. There is nothing that exists that does not exist in nature.

Some judgments are better than other judgements because the better judgements are more reasoned and more knowledgeable. Claims that slavery is wrong are better than claims that slavery is right, and this is because there is well reasoned and experienced judgement, and more and wider accurate knowledge that support claims that slavery is wrong.

Our judgements matter because we humans have conscious intentions and are able to make things happen. Because humans can exercise judgement and reason it's our duty to nature and to ourselves to improve our knowledge, experience, and judgement.

There is no judgement, or knowledge outside of nature , and since our remit is limited to humans there is no judgement or knowledge that is not human judgement and knowledge.Therefore the moral wrongness of slavery of slavery and the moral rightness of slavery each exist in nature however the moral wrongness of slavery is a better judgement than the moral rightness of slavery.

Wow.. that is a great answer.

One point is the moral facts [within a moral FSK] of ought and ought-not are inbuilt within nature, i.e. human nature.

• For example, DNA/DNA wise all humans are "programmed" with the ought-not to touch things within certain degrees of hotness or be exposed to heat in excess of what is bearable by any normal human being.
  This 'ought-not' in relation to heat is programmed via a complex neural algorithm [pain, emotions, motion, reflex actions, etc.] that is connected with the sense of touch, sight, and perhaps smell [burnt] or even hearing [thunder and the raging of fires].
  
  Whilst the ought-not of heat is inherent in all humans, if this is not activated instinctively, the person will soon learn from experience of what degree of heat must be avoided to avoid endangering their life.
  So avoiding hot objects is not purely learning from experience [nurturing], but the underlying factor is the inherent [nature] ought-not regarding heat.
  
  Obviously the above is a fact of nature, i.e. human nature

The above example is similar to the moral ought and ought-not.
I have justified the moral fact,
"all humans ought-not to kill another"
is programmed as a neural algorithm within all human beings.
Since this is a very critical moral ought-not, this instinct is very strong in the majority of people, thus easily triggering their intuition on this issue.

For a percentile of humans, the above ought-not "program" is not very active or had been damaged [e.g. psychopaths] thus they are prone to kill, but that do not mean the moral ought-not to kill 'program' is not existing within them.

What I am doing is using reason to abstract the above moral fact from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning and to justify the existence of the above moral ought-not or ought [depending on how we phrase it] within nature, i.e. human nature.

So I agree with your point "every concept and belief of every person exists in nature", there are moral facts with nature, i.e. human nature [as justified to be true].

What? Of course all judgements exist in nature. Who ever rationally thought otherwise? (Supernaturalists therefore excluded.)

So of course moral judgements exist in nature. Humans make moral judgements, and express them using moral assertions, such as 'slavery is morally wrong' - or, in the past, 'slavery is not morally wrong'.

Why humans make those moral judgements, and why they have changed and are changing, have no bearing on the actual nature of a moral judgement - which is that it is and can only be a judgement, and therefore subjective. A moral assertion can't be a fact.

But that a dropped apple falls is a fact - not a matter of judgement or opinion. And that's the difference. In nature.