There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

[Skepdick]

It is testable, and the test resulted in: there aren't any extramental/objective oughts.

But if reality is all there is, why are you selective about your search?

Selective as in?

Searching for anything that could count as an extramental "should/ought"

You are imposing conditions on your search.

You are prescribing where moral facts ought to be sought.

[Terrapin Station]

But if reality is all there is, why are you selective about your search?

Selective as in?

Searching for anything that could count as an extramental "should/ought"

You are imposing conditions on your search.

You are prescribing where moral facts ought to be sought.

If the topic is extramental stuff, that's what we look at.

[Skepdick]

If the topic is extramental stuff, that's what we look at.

The topic is moral facts.

If reality is "all there is" and facts describe the state of affairs, why are you excluding the mental facts?

[Terrapin Station]

If the topic is extramental stuff, that's what we look at.

The topic is moral facts.

If reality is "all there is" and facts describe the state of affairs, why are you excluding the mental facts?

There is no dispute over whether it's a fact that people have moral stances.

[Skepdick]

There is no dispute over whether it's a fact that people have moral stances.

There's no dispute over the factuality of the contents of those moral stances either.

You are anti-X
I am pro-X

Both of those are facts.

[Terrapin Station]

There is no dispute over whether it's a fact that people have moral stances.

There's no dispute over the factuality of the contents of those moral stances either.

You are anti-X
I am pro-X

Both of those are facts.

Sure.

[Skepdick]

Sure.

Great! There you have them. Objective moral facts.

Now you aren't going to like this at all, because it disagrees with your NORMATIVE IDEA of what moral facts OUGHT to be.

[Terrapin Station]

Sure.

Great! There you have them. Objective moral facts.

I use "objective" to refer to "extramental." The facts we're talking about aren't extramental.

Even using "objective" in some alternate way that you'd need to better specify for me to be able to understand it, it wouldn't do the work that most people want objectivity to do, such as implying a normative.

[Skepdick]

I use "objective" to refer to "extramental.

Why do you prescribe/constrain "objectivity" to the "extramental"?

Why doesn't "objectivity" correspond exactly to all that exists?

[Terrapin Station]

I use "objective" to refer to "extramental.

Why do you prescribe/constrain "objectivity" to the "extramental"?

Why doesn't "objectivity" correspond exactly to all that exists?

Again, it's not a prescription. First, if I were to use "objectivity" for "all that exists," then it's yet another term that I'd have to explain every time I use it, because there would be no reason to expect that anyone would understand that idiosyncratic definition without making it explicit. And then I'm getting rid of a distinction (objective/subjective) that's handy in a lot of contexts. I'd have other terms for the distinction in question, but I also already have other terms for "all that exists."

[Skepdick]

Again, it's not a prescription. First, if I were to use "objectivity" for "all that exists," then it's yet another term that I'd have to explain every time I use it, because there would be no reason to expect that anyone would understand that idiosyncratic definition without making it explicit. And then I'm getting rid of a distinction (objective/subjective) that's handy in a lot of contexts. I'd have other terms for the distinction in question, but I also already have other terms for "all that exists."

Well, it's not about having or not having terms. It's about needing terms.

Why do you need to distinguish such things?

[Terrapin Station]

Again, it's not a prescription. First, if I were to use "objectivity" for "all that exists," then it's yet another term that I'd have to explain every time I use it, because there would be no reason to expect that anyone would understand that idiosyncratic definition without making it explicit. And then I'm getting rid of a distinction (objective/subjective) that's handy in a lot of contexts. I'd have other terms for the distinction in question, but I also already have other terms for "all that exists."

Well, it's not about having or not having terms. It's about needing terms.

Why do you need to distinguish such things?

Because it corresponds to an ontological distinction that comes up all the time.

[Skepdick]

Because it corresponds to an ontological distinction that comes up all the time.

Well no shit. All the distinctions that I use come up when I use them.

Why do you need it?

[Terrapin Station]

Because it corresponds to an ontological distinction that comes up all the time.

Well no shit. All the distinctions that I use come up when I use them.

Why do you need it?

You didn't seem to understand "corresponds to an ontological distinction."

[Skepdick]

You didn't seem to understand "corresponds to an ontological distinction."

You don't seem to understand that all distinctions are epistemic.