Philosophy Now Forum

Here is a discussion that where I argue, Moral Facts justified within a moral framework and system [FSK] are significantly mental-states within an individual person in reality and are not SOLELY physical states. It has a physiological basis.

Moral facts are mental-states of an individual with a physiological basis [neurons, brain and body] with potentials to act morally within a moral framework and system [FSK].

I define 'morality' [loosely] as, the framework and system of reality and knowledge which justify moral facts that favors the well being of the individual[s]' good behavior and avoid evil behavior - therefrom to humanity.
Note the criticalness and emphasis on the individual person.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 8:50 am Pay attention. Deduction, induction and abduction are ways of reaching a conclusion from a premise or premises. And I'm saying a moral conclusion doesn't and can't follow from a factual premise by any method: deduction, induction or abduction - unless the conclusion is assumed as or in a premise, in which case the argument is a question-begging fallacy.

The fact that natural science conclusions are inductive but empirically testable is what makes them radically different from moral and aesthetic - non-factual - conclusions.
How could a moral conclusion be inductive or abductive? Again, the question is incoherent.

A moral fact is a mental-state supported by physiological facts and has the potential to act morally within a moral FSK.

A fact [factual confirmation] is specific to a FSR/FSK.
A scientific conclusion [factual confirmation of a predicted-fact] is verified and justified within a scientific FSK.
A scientific conclusion via its FSK is based on inductive reasoning.

A moral fact is similar to a scientific fact in its verification and justification processes based on induction.
A moral conclusion [factual confirmation of a predicted-fact] is verified and justified within a moral FSK.

Note this very critical point;
-those so-called moral assertions, moral judgments, moral statements, moral opinions and moral whatever made by individual[s] and groups - are NOT moral facts. They are not those moral facts as moral norms/standards which are subjected to being verified and justified within a moral FSK.

For example if a convicted murder-X confessed "I believe it is right to kill Mr. Y" or the father of Y condemned 'it is morally wrong that X had killed Mr. Y,' the above examples of beliefs of supposedly 'morally' related statements are not moral facts per se.
They above acts and beliefs are merely variances from the moral norm 'no human ought to kill humans.'

The difference between scientific facts and moral facts is purely and most significantly based on the different FSKs they are conditioned upon.

I believe your problem is you are so ignorant and dogmatic in thinking Science is merely confined to physical states and that you are ignorant of 'what is objectivity.'
To you, since moral elements are not physical states, therefore they cannot be facts which are objective.

Note, mental states within reality [all-there-is] which are not physical states of reality are also scientific facts when justified within its specific FSK. Note,

Affective science is the scientific study of emotion or affect. This includes the study of emotion elicitation, emotional experience and the recognition of emotions in others.
Of particular relevance are the nature of feeling, mood, emotionally-driven behaviour, decision-making, attention and self-regulation, as well as the underlying physiology and neuroscience of the emotions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affective_science#:

Thus, the existence of the mental states, i.e. the potentials are scientific-facts within the scientific and affective-science FSK.
The individuals' expression of emotional feelings are subjective emotional feelings, not the fact-of-emotions per se.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

• For example the anger-emotion is a fact of Affective-Science as a mental state and potential.
  The rage and anger expressed by individuals are subjective thus are not a fact of affective-science as verified and justified within its specific FSK.
  Thus the fact of anger-emotion is the evolved mental-biological state [& potential] represented by its specific physiology and neuro-algorithm as verified within its specific FSK.

Similarly, a moral fact is also an evolved mental-biological state [& potential] represented by its specific physiology [in brain and body] and neuro-algorithm as verified and justified within a moral FSK.

My point:
Moral facts are represented by mental-biological states within an individual person.
Moral facts are not like physical facts, e.g. a stone, tree or a sun.

Agree, disagree?
Views?

What and where is the mind, or any other so-called abstract thing, and in what way does it exist? Answers, please, without equivocation on the words 'thing' and 'exist'. Talk about 'mental states' is so much metaphysical blather. And this retreat into mentalism to defend moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts - is laughable. Abstract things are mysteries invented to explain mysteries of our own invention. A dog chasing its tail needs to rethink the premise.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 12:48 pm What and where is the mind, or any other so-called abstract thing, and in what way does it exist? Answers, please, without equivocation on the words 'thing' and 'exist'. Talk about 'mental states' is so much metaphysical blather. And this retreat into mentalism to defend moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts - is laughable. Abstract things are mysteries invented to explain mysteries of our own invention. A dog chasing its tail needs to rethink the premise.

You did not address my points that support my thesis.
You just jump in like a mad dog.

Why should we be bother with 'where is the mind' physically. I am not interested in a physical-mind as a fact.
However, a mind is a fact within the psychological FSK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

What is more concern is what the human brain can trigger a human person to act morally or otherwise.

Do you insist emotions do not exist as a fact? i.e. a mental-state that has neural correlates.
Are you insisting the neural potential for emotions are mysteries of human inventions?

I am not referring to emotional responses and feelings [which are different facts] but the inherent set of neural organs that has potential for triggering emotional feelings.

For example the fear-emotion potential is supported by a real set of neural correlates where the main organ responsible is the pair of amygdala in their connectivity with others parts of the brain.
Note the mechanism of fear,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear#Mechanism
Thus this fear-emotion-mechanism in a mental state of potential is a fact, i.e. a psychological fact within the psychological FSK or a fact of other relevant FSK, e.g. a psychiatric fact, a biological fact, a neuroscientific fact.

Thus moral facts which are verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically is similar to the facts of emotion [btw, not emotional feelings].

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 9:09 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 12:48 pm What and where is the mind, or any other so-called abstract thing, and in what way does it exist? Answers, please, without equivocation on the words 'thing' and 'exist'. Talk about 'mental states' is so much metaphysical blather. And this retreat into mentalism to defend moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts - is laughable. Abstract things are mysteries invented to explain mysteries of our own invention. A dog chasing its tail needs to rethink the premise.

You did not address my points that support my thesis.
You just jump in like a mad dog.

Why should we be bother with 'where is the mind' physically. I am not interested in a physical-mind as a fact.
However, a mind is a fact within the psychological FSK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

What is more concern is what the human brain can trigger a human person to act morally or otherwise.

Do you insist emotions do not exist as a fact? i.e. a mental-state that has neural correlates.
Are you insisting the neural potential for emotions are mysteries of human inventions?

I am not referring to emotional responses and feelings [which are different facts] but the inherent set of neural organs that has potential for triggering emotional feelings.

For example the fear-emotion potential is supported by a real set of neural correlates where the main organ responsible is the pair of amygdala in their connectivity with others parts of the brain.
Note the mechanism of fear,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear#Mechanism
Thus this fear-emotion-mechanism in a mental state of potential is a fact, i.e. a psychological fact within the psychological FSK or a fact of other relevant FSK, e.g. a psychiatric fact, a biological fact, a neuroscientific fact.

Thus moral facts which are verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically is similar to the facts of emotion [btw, not emotional feelings].

You claim that moral facts are mental states, not physical states. So you claim there are mental states. So you are retreating into substance-dualism, which is metaphysical nonsense. I don't need to address the points supporting an unsupportable position. Nul point.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 10:38 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 9:09 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 12:48 pm What and where is the mind, or any other so-called abstract thing, and in what way does it exist? Answers, please, without equivocation on the words 'thing' and 'exist'. Talk about 'mental states' is so much metaphysical blather. And this retreat into mentalism to defend moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts - is laughable. Abstract things are mysteries invented to explain mysteries of our own invention. A dog chasing its tail needs to rethink the premise.

You did not address my points that support my thesis.
You just jump in like a mad dog.

Why should we be bother with 'where is the mind' physically. I am not interested in a physical-mind as a fact.
However, a mind is a fact within the psychological FSK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

What is more concern is what the human brain can trigger a human person to act morally or otherwise.

Do you insist emotions do not exist as a fact? i.e. a mental-state that has neural correlates.
Are you insisting the neural potential for emotions are mysteries of human inventions?

I am not referring to emotional responses and feelings [which are different facts] but the inherent set of neural organs that has potential for triggering emotional feelings.

For example the fear-emotion potential is supported by a real set of neural correlates where the main organ responsible is the pair of amygdala in their connectivity with others parts of the brain.
Note the mechanism of fear,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear#Mechanism
Thus this fear-emotion-mechanism in a mental state of potential is a fact, i.e. a psychological fact within the psychological FSK or a fact of other relevant FSK, e.g. a psychiatric fact, a biological fact, a neuroscientific fact.

Thus moral facts which are verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically is similar to the facts of emotion [btw, not emotional feelings].

You claim that moral facts are mental states, not physical states. So you claim there are mental states. So you are retreating into substance-dualism, which is metaphysical nonsense. I don't need to address the points supporting an unsupportable position. Nul point.

This is so pathetic, you are so ignorant and you do not know what substance realism is about.
Read it here https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#SubDua
and you will note it has nothing to do with the OP.
Show me how the details I presented in the OP are related to substance realism as explained above.

My point is moral facts are like emotion-as-fact, i.e.
within the Psychological FSK, etc. there exist within our brain the set of neurons from various parts of the brain [emotion-as-fact] that will trigger emotional feelings when triggered by the appropriate stimuli.

It is the same with the sexual drive as fact, i.e.
within the Sexuality FSK, etc. there exist within our brain the set of neurons from various parts of the brain [sexual_drive-as-fact] that will trigger sexual feelings and behaviors when triggered by the appropriate stimuli.

The emotional and sexual potentials [supported by it physical parts] within all humans are not pure physical states, but non-physical states as potentials.

Thus,
within the moral FSK there exists within our brain the set of neurons from various parts of the brain [moral facts] that will trigger moral behavior when triggered by the appropriate stimuli.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 9:02 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 10:38 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 9:09 am
You did not address my points that support my thesis.
You just jump in like a mad dog.

Why should we be bother with 'where is the mind' physically. I am not interested in a physical-mind as a fact.
However, a mind is a fact within the psychological FSK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

What is more concern is what the human brain can trigger a human person to act morally or otherwise.

Do you insist emotions do not exist as a fact? i.e. a mental-state that has neural correlates.
Are you insisting the neural potential for emotions are mysteries of human inventions?

I am not referring to emotional responses and feelings [which are different facts] but the inherent set of neural organs that has potential for triggering emotional feelings.

For example the fear-emotion potential is supported by a real set of neural correlates where the main organ responsible is the pair of amygdala in their connectivity with others parts of the brain.
Note the mechanism of fear,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear#Mechanism
Thus this fear-emotion-mechanism in a mental state of potential is a fact, i.e. a psychological fact within the psychological FSK or a fact of other relevant FSK, e.g. a psychiatric fact, a biological fact, a neuroscientific fact.

Thus moral facts which are verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically is similar to the facts of emotion [btw, not emotional feelings].

You claim that moral facts are mental states, not physical states. So you claim there are mental states. So you are retreating into substance-dualism, which is metaphysical nonsense. I don't need to address the points supporting an unsupportable position. Nul point.

This is so pathetic, you are so ignorant and you do not know what substance realism is about.
Read it here https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#SubDua
and you will note it has nothing to do with the OP.
Show me how the details I presented in the OP are related to substance realism as explained above.

My point is moral facts are like emotion-as-fact, i.e.
within the Psychological FSK, etc. there exist within our brain the set of neurons from various parts of the brain [emotion-as-fact] that will trigger emotional feelings when triggered by the appropriate stimuli.

It is the same with the sexual drive as fact, i.e.
within the Sexuality FSK, etc. there exist within our brain the set of neurons from various parts of the brain [sexual_drive-as-fact] that will trigger sexual feelings and behaviors when triggered by the appropriate stimuli.

The emotional and sexual potentials [supported by it physical parts] within all humans are not pure physical states, but non-physical states as potentials.

Thus,
within the moral FSK there exists within our brain the set of neurons from various parts of the brain [moral facts] that will trigger moral behavior when triggered by the appropriate stimuli.

If you think there are mental states and events that are different from physical states and events, then you are a substance dualist. Own it.

But anyway, this is the same specious argument: we're 'programmed' not to do X; therefore X is morally wrong. Or: we're 'programmed' with an emotional response - say, revulsion - to X; therefore X is morally wrong. The moral conclusion doesn't follow in either case.

But if, instead, your preferred conclusion is: therefore X is inconsistent with our 'programming' - that is no longer a moral assertion, and has no moral implication. But that penny just won't drop for you.

Nul point.

ALL facts occur in mental states and NOT in physical states.

This is just OBVIOUS.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 2:13 pm ALL facts occur in mental states and NOT in physical states.

This is just OBVIOUS.

A fact is a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true. (Concise Oxford.)

How does such a thing occur 'in a mental state'? And anyway, what and where is 'a mental state'? What and where is what we call the mind, and in what way does it exist?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 2:13 pm ALL facts occur in mental states and NOT in physical states.

This is just OBVIOUS.

All mental states are physical brain states, so no. Your statement is always wrong. You cannot have a mental state that is not physical too.
Facts are referents. Whilst they all exist as mental states, they most often refer to external physical states. These can be very complex, such as a state of affairs with multiple conditions and situations.
For example the statement.
"The UK is fucked"
Is a fact deep in metaphor. Not to be taken literally, and refers to: the reaction of several European countries' and their reaction to the news that the UK had discovered a new COVID strain; problems regarding the lack of a trade deal with the EU; an absurd attachment to the monarch and peole absurdly clinging to its imperial past; the failure to control the media's continual war on democracy; ad infinitem...

There can be no mental without physical. That is inductively and empirically true

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 4:59 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 2:13 pm ALL facts occur in mental states and NOT in physical states.

This is just OBVIOUS.

A fact is a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true. (Concise Oxford.)

How does such a thing occur 'in a mental state'?

VERY SIMPLY by YOUR use of the word 'known'.

Where is ANY thing 'known'?

Your Honest answer here would be very much appreciated.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 4:59 pm And anyway, what and where is 'a mental state'?

You have JUMPED very quickly from 'asking a clarifying question', to "And anyway,". Did you want to wait for my response to the first question or did you, consciously or probably unconsciously work out the answer to your first question, and so now just want to move onto this question straightaway?

And by the way, the answer to this question is OBVIOUSLY where ALL 'mental' activity resides, and that is; In 'thought' or in 'thinking', itself.

So:
What is 'a mental state' is just 'thinking', itself.

Where is 'a mental state' is just in 'thought', itself.

Now, since as you claim; 'A fact is a 'thing' that is 'known' ...', and, ALL 'knowing' (or 'known things') exist in 'thought', then this means that ALL facts are 'mental states' or just plain and simply 'in the mental state of 'thought/thinking', itself.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 4:59 pm What and where is what we call the mind, and in what way does it exist?

Wow, after all this time in this thread this is the first time I have seen someone so CURIOUS.

What and where is what 'you', human beings, call "the mind", and in what way does "this mind" exist is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY up to how ALL of 'you', individually or collectively, decide.

However, what and where is what 'I' call 'the Mind' is 'It' is the part of the human being that is OPEN, and which is what has ALLOWED and continues to ALLOW human beings to keep discovering and learning more and anew ALWAYS.

To me, the Mind is ALWAYS OPEN. The (always OPEN) Mind is what ALL human beings are born with and it is from this Truly OPEN perspective WHY human beings have the ability to learn, understand, and reason ANY and EVERY thing.

It is, instinctively?, KNOWN that to be able to learn and understand something new or more than one has to be OPEN to 'it'. The Mind is ALWAYS OPEN to learning more and new things, but already gained knowledge within the brain can distort or hinder this process. Just about EVERY adult human being can provide examples of when someone could NOT see 'a truth' of something or was not able to learn something because they were NOT OPEN to it.

To me, there is NO actual 'place' where the Mind is. The Mind just refers to "that part or piece" of 'us', human beings, which is just OPEN to ANY and ALL things. This OPEN Mind is what allows ALL very young human beings to learn VERY DIFFERENT things, depending on what culture, time, and place they are born into and brought up in, like very different 'languages', for example. Each individual brain then just stores, as knowledge, what is learned.

Also, what is generally referred to as "your mind" or as "one's own mind", when LOOK AT from a Truly OPEN perspective nearly always is just a reference to one's own individual 'thoughts' and 'thinking'.

And, in what 'way' the Mind exists is by just 'KNOWING', which is VERY DIFFERENT to just 'thinking'. The Truly OPEN Mind exists in a 'way' by ALLOWING 'human beings' to ACTUALLY KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth of things ARE, that is; when they are NOT being deceived by their own individual 'thinking'.

The Mind exists in a 'way' that allows the 'human being' to keep evolving into being the Creator of their OWN destiny.

I could go on for hours with further self-supporting EVIDENCE and PROOF, which would back up and support EVERY thing with this view here completely but I will leave this now and await your response.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 5:20 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 2:13 pm ALL facts occur in mental states and NOT in physical states.

This is just OBVIOUS.

All mental states are physical brain states, so no.

Okay. So is the One and ONLY True and Right Correct ANSWER forever more. Or, is this just what 'you' think or believe is true?

By the way WHY do 'you' use TWO VERY DIFFERENT WORDS to EXPLAIN the, supposedly, EXACT SAME STATE or EXACT SAME THING?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 5:20 pm Your statement is always wrong.

LOL You do SEE the funny side of your CLAIM in your statement here, right?

Your statement here is CLAIMING that my statements are ALWAYS WRONG, which is OBVIOUSLY a WRONG statement in and of itself.

Or, do 'you', "sculptor" actually MEAN that my ONE statement there is ALWAYS WRONG, or do 'you', "sculptor" actually BELIEVE that ALL of my statements are ALWAYS WRONG?

Your Honest answers now would be VERY MUCH appreciated here.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 5:20 pm You cannot have a mental state that is not physical too.

Are you meaning to say something like; You can have a mental state which COMES FROM a physical state? Or, do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that a 'mental state' is ACTUALLY a 'physical state'?

If it is the latter, then WHY use TWO DIFFERENT WORDS/TERMS?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 5:20 pm Facts are referents.

Agreed.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 5:20 pm Whilst they all exist as mental states, they most often refer to external physical states.

So, are you now agreeing with me that ALL facts occur in mental states? Or, do you still INSIST on your "No" response to what I said/claimed?

Also, OF COURSE, 'facts' can and do refer to 'external' physical states. Besides the fact that facts would HAVE TO refer to something 'external' to the mental state when the fact is ABOUT an 'external' thing, or external state, this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to what I stated and claimed above.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 5:20 pm These can be very complex,

But there is NOTHING that is allegedly "very complex", that is; When and if LOOKING and SEEING properly AND correctly.

By the way, what does your "these" word here REFER to EXACTLY?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 5:20 pm These can be very complex,such as a state of affairs with multiple conditions and situations.
For example the statement.
"The UK is fucked"

Are you even AWARE that the statement; "The UK is fucked", is, OBVIOUSLY, just an absurd, illogical, and nonsensical statement at best?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 5:20 pm Is a fact deep in metaphor. Not to be taken literally,

So, WHY bring it up in a 'philosophy forum'?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 5:20 pm and refers to: the reaction of several European countries' and their reaction to the news that the UK had discovered a new COVID strain; problems regarding the lack of a trade deal with the EU; an absurd attachment to the monarch and peole absurdly clinging to its imperial past; the failure to control the media's continual war on democracy; ad infinitem...

These are NOT necessarily 'facts' but just your OWN person view of things, which is NOT necessarily true NOR factual AT ALL?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 5:20 pm There can be no mental without physical. That is inductively and empirically true

I agree that there can be no mental without physical. I also agree that that is inductively and empirically true. But what you seem to have MISSED or IGNORED is 'mental states' EXIST. Which is just WHERE and WHAT I stated and claimed, 'ALL facts occur in'. But which you state and claim, "No' to.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here are YOUR OWN PERSONAL ASSUMPTION, which has led YOU COMPLETELY ASTRAY, once again. Your ALREADY gained and held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS are NOT allowing 'you' to SEE CLEARLY only 'that' what is CLEARLY WRITTEN. You are just SEEING what 'you' ASSUME or more correctly PRESUME is written and BEING MEANT.

By the way what had your previous six sentences/statements got to do with this conclusion?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 10:48 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 9:02 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 10:38 am

You claim that moral facts are mental states, not physical states. So you claim there are mental states. So you are retreating into substance-dualism, which is metaphysical nonsense. I don't need to address the points supporting an unsupportable position. Nul point.

This is so pathetic, you are so ignorant and you do not know what substance realism is about.
Read it here https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#SubDua
and you will note it has nothing to do with the OP.
Show me how the details I presented in the OP are related to substance realism as explained above.

My point is moral facts are like emotion-as-fact, i.e.
within the Psychological FSK, etc. there exist within our brain the set of neurons from various parts of the brain [emotion-as-fact] that will trigger emotional feelings when triggered by the appropriate stimuli.

It is the same with the sexual drive as fact, i.e.
within the Sexuality FSK, etc. there exist within our brain the set of neurons from various parts of the brain [sexual_drive-as-fact] that will trigger sexual feelings and behaviors when triggered by the appropriate stimuli.

The emotional and sexual potentials [supported by it physical parts] within all humans are not pure physical states, but non-physical states as potentials.

Thus,
within the moral FSK there exists within our brain the set of neurons from various parts of the brain [moral facts] that will trigger moral behavior when triggered by the appropriate stimuli.

If you think there are mental states and events that are different from physical states and events, then you are a substance dualist. Own it.

Own what? your stupidity?

You have not answered my question.
Do you agree, the potential-for-emotions in humans is a fact? Yes or No.

But anyway, this is the same specious argument: we're 'programmed' not to do X; therefore X is morally wrong.
Or: we're 'programmed' with an emotional response - say, revulsion - to X; therefore X is morally wrong. The moral conclusion doesn't follow in either case.

The above is not wrong and irrelevant to morality.
The potential-for-emotions in humans is a fact as analogous to the potential-for-morality in human as a fact.

I did not relate emotions to morality in the above case, but merely their potentials are both psychological facts.

I don't prefer the term 'morally wrong' but where humans acts out of alignment with the inherent moral facts, that is a moral deviation from the norms within a moral framework and system.

But if, instead, your preferred conclusion is: therefore X is inconsistent with our 'programming' - that is no longer a moral assertion, and has no moral implication. But that penny just won't drop for you.
Nul point.

It has moral implications when conditioned upon a moral framework and system.

The general principle is, a proposition has X implications when conditioned upon an X framework and system.
E.g. the common liquid we drink and use to bathe has scientific implications [i.e. is H20] when conditioned only upon the scientific [chemistry] FSK.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 5:20 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 2:13 pm ALL facts occur in mental states and NOT in physical states.

This is just OBVIOUS.

All mental states are physical brain states, so no. Your statement is always wrong. You cannot have a mental state that is not physical too.
Facts are referents. Whilst they all exist as mental states, they most often refer to external physical states. These can be very complex, such as a state of affairs with multiple conditions and situations.
For example the statement.
"The UK is fucked"
Is a fact deep in metaphor. Not to be taken literally, and refers to: the reaction of several European countries' and their reaction to the news that the UK had discovered a new COVID strain; problems regarding the lack of a trade deal with the EU; an absurd attachment to the monarch and peole absurdly clinging to its imperial past; the failure to control the media's continual war on democracy; ad infinitem...

There can be no mental without physical. That is inductively and empirically true

You are very ignorant with a very shallow and narrow philosophical database.

The existence of the US Dollar is a fact.
Do you deny this?

The US Dollar is not backed by any physical gold standard.
The US Dollar as an ECONOMIC fact is purely mental.

Do you deny your existence as a 'me' is a fact.
The 'me' [empirical self] as a fact is purely mental.
Without the mental 'you' are merely a corpse.

The generic potential within humans for emotions [mental state*] is a fact.
Analogously,
the generic potential within humans for morality [mental state] is a fact.
* yes, this mental state is supported by the relevant physical.

Facts are referents.

There are no independent referent without any reference to the human conditions.
Note there is no objective to any referent,
Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31424

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 1:29 am... OBVIOUS.
... ANSWER ... TWO VERY DIFFERENT WORDS to EXPLAIN ... EXACT SAME STATE or EXACT SAME THING?... CLAIM ... CLAIMING ... is OBVIOUSLY a WRONG ... MEAN ... ONE ... ALWAYS WRONG,...BELIEVE that ALL ... ALWAYS WRONG?
VERY MUCH ... COMES FROM ... ACTUALLY BELIEVE ... is ACTUALLY ... TWO DIFFERENT WORDS/TERMS?
...OF COURSE,...HAVE TO ... ABOUT ... NOTHING WHATSOEVER...LOOKING and SEEING ... REFER to EXACTLY?
.. AWARE ... CLEARLY SEEN ... YOUR OWN PERSONAL ASSUMPTION... YOU COMPLETELY ASTRAY, ... ALREADY ... BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS a... SEE CLEARLY .. CLEARLY WRITTEN. ... SEEING ...ASSUME ...PRESUME ... BEING MEANT.

Yet another shouty rant.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 6:15 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 5:20 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 2:13 pm ALL facts occur in mental states and NOT in physical states.

This is just OBVIOUS.

All mental states are physical brain states, so no. Your statement is always wrong. You cannot have a mental state that is not physical too.
Facts are referents. Whilst they all exist as mental states, they most often refer to external physical states. These can be very complex, such as a state of affairs with multiple conditions and situations.
For example the statement.
"The UK is fucked"
Is a fact deep in metaphor. Not to be taken literally, and refers to: the reaction of several European countries' and their reaction to the news that the UK had discovered a new COVID strain; problems regarding the lack of a trade deal with the EU; an absurd attachment to the monarch and peole absurdly clinging to its imperial past; the failure to control the media's continual war on democracy; ad infinitem...

There can be no mental without physical. That is inductively and empirically true

The existence of the US Dollar is a fact.
Do you deny this?

"The dollar" is a concept. It is represented variously by bits of paper, small metal objects, and lines of computer code. It wholy relies on belief. THe dollar can exist without these things and the existence of these things does not necessitate the existence of the dollar. If you think they do then ask anyone who owns a quantity of cancelled currency.

The US Dollar is not backed by any physical gold standard.
The US Dollar as an ECONOMIC fact is purely mental.

ALL mental states are ultimately physical, since the physicality of the human brain is required to reproduce then. Were there a cessation of that cerebral activity which generates and promotes the belief in the dollar the dollar would be meaningless.

Do you deny your existence as a 'me' is a fact.
The 'me' [empirical self] as a fact is purely mental.
Without the mental 'you' are merely a corpse.

The generic potential within humans for emotions [mental state*] is a fact.
Analogously,
the generic potential within humans for morality [mental state] is a fact.
* yes, this mental state is supported by the relevant physical.

This is just irrelevant gibberish.

Facts are referents.

There are no independent referent without any reference to the human conditions.
Note there is no objective to any referent,
Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31424

What is the point of your post here?