The implication of the above is exposing the language games played by moral-facts-deniers in their denial that moral facts do not exist.A language-game (German: Sprachspiel) is a philosophical concept developed by Ludwig Wittgenstein, referring to simple examples of language use and the actions into which the language is woven.
Wittgenstein argued that a word or even a sentence has meaning only as a result of the “rule” of the “game” being played.
Depending on the context, for example, the utterance “Water!” could be an order, the answer to a question, or some other form of communication.
-wiki
To them, moral-facts do not exist is merely conditioned upon the specific rules of the language game they played.
Within a language game the players can set any rules, in this case to exclude 'facts' [as they defined it] from morality [as they defined it].
Anyone who want to play their specific games must comply by the rules set within the game.
The point here is when the moral-fact-deniers use the term "fact" they are using it within their specific language-game with its own specific Framework, System and rules.
Their basic rules are adopted from the defunct ideologies of the Logical Positivism,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
Note the familiar term 'state of affairs' often touted by Peter, Pantflasher, and others of the likes.Logical positivism, later called logical empiricism, and both of which together are also known as neopositivism, was a movement in Western philosophy whose central thesis was the verification principle (also known as the verifiability criterion of meaning).[1] This theory of knowledge asserted that only statements verifiable through direct observation or logical proof are meaningful.
The logical positivists' initial stance was that a statement is "cognitively meaningful" only if some finite procedure conclusively determines its truth.[19]
By this verifiability principle, only statements verifiable either by their analyticity or by empiricism were cognitively meaningful.
Metaphysics, ontology, as well as much of ethics failed this criterion, and so were found cognitively meaningless. Moritz Schlick, however, did not view ethical or aesthetic statements as cognitively meaningless.[20]
Cognitive meaningfulness was variously defined: having a truth value; corresponding to a possible state of affairs; intelligible or understandable as are scientific statements.
The problem with moral-facts-deniers is they insist their language game is absolute and unconditionally, thus applicable to everyone and every game others played.
But when I proposed moral facts exists [not from a God nor Plato's] the moral facts deniers go into a crazy and mad frenzy [intellectually, & emotionally as well].
The fact is the moral facts I proposed are based on a different language-game, i.e. the moral-fact language game or Moral F/S with its own specific rules.
It is not silly game but the rules and principles with the Moral F/S are justified empirically and philosophically.
In addition, my definition of 'what is fact' is based on the generally accepted meaning, i.e.
- Fact
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/fact
- A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1] For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and "The sun is a star." is an astronomical fact. Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
To be intellectually honest, they cannot enforce the specific rules of their 'language game' on the different 'language games' of others.
What they should do is to demonstrate the language games played by others and they do not agree with are not realistic and they should justify their claims with sound arguments and justifications.
What the moral-facts-denier do not realize is their dogmatism on their limited definition of 'what is fact' is traceable to the bastardized philosophies of the Logical Positivists.
Views?