Philosophy Now Forum

1 In my discussion with Peter Holmes, et. al. they claim there are no moral facts - they're the moral-fact-deniers.

2 For them there are only 'facts' i.e. defined as,
a fact is a feature of reality, something that is the case—that is, a state of affairs which is confined to the linguistic perspective, e.g.

• 3 Facts may be understood as information that makes a true sentence true.
  E.g. the fact 'Water is H20".
  
  Facts may also be understood as those things to which a true sentence refers.
  The statement "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" is about the fact Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system.

4 The problem is Peter Holmes et. al. are blinded by their dogmatism and bigotry in sticking to merely one perspective of 'what is fact', i.e. the linguistic and semantic perspective which are merely based on words and do not reflect and engage reality.

5 The point is there is no fact-in-itself that they speak of.
Fact-in-itself is defined as fact or feature-of-reality, state-of-affair, something-that-is-the-case that exists by itself independent of human conceptions and entanglements.
If we are to represent 'fact' and 'humans' in venn diagrams, the two circles will interact 90% with each other.

6 Can the moral-fact-deniers [like PH] prove a fact-in-itself exists as really-real and is totally independent of humans entanglement?

7 My claim is,

• what is fact, i.e. feature-of-reality, state-of-affair, something-that-is-the-case cannot exists as a fact-in-itself, i.e. totally independent of humans entanglements;
  
  what is justified as fact exists as a 'package' or 'system' i.e. fact-in-entanglement-with-humans, thus cannot be totally independent of human conditions.

8 Fact-in-entanglement-with-humans entangles with humans within various framework and system of reality [FSR] or knowledge [FSK].
The most credible FSK is the scientific FSK, thus the standard bearer of reality relative to all other known FSKs.

9 Thus, note the examples given as what is fact above,

• the fact, 'Water is H20" is in entanglement with the Chemistry FSK
  
  the fact, "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" entangles with the Astronomy FSK.

So, at the mentioned of any fact, it is implied by default to include the specific FSK and human conditions it is entangled with.
To claim whatever that is a fact exists independent of human conceptions as Philosophical Realists do is not tenable nor realistic.

10 Since specific facts [even as claimed by the moral deniers] as demonstrated above are conditioned upon and entangled with a specific framework & system and human conditions,
thus justified moral facts are specific to the moral framework and system.
Therefore justified moral facts do exist as conditioned and in entanglement with the moral FSK.

11 The problem with PH et. al. is, at the mentioned of justified moral facts, they quickly jumped to their dogmatic definition of 'what is fact' [fact-in-itself] in the linguistic perspective [2 &3 ] without any consideration to the point that facts [as explained] above must imperatively be conjoined with their specific framework and system [4-10].

There are no fact-in-itself!

Views?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 9:34 am 1 In my discussion with Peter Holmes, et. al. they claim there are no moral facts - they're the moral-fact-deniers.

2 For them there are only 'facts' i.e. defined as,
a fact is a feature of reality, something that is the case—that is, a state of affairs which is confined to the linguistic perspective, e.g.

• 3 Facts may be understood as information that makes a true sentence true.
  E.g. the fact 'Water is H20".
  Facts may also be understood as those things to which a true sentence refers.
  The statement "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" is about the fact Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system.

4 The problem is Peter Holmes et. al. are blinded by their dogmatism and bigotry in sticking to merely one perspective of 'what is fact', i.e. the linguistic and semantic perspective which are merely based on words and do not reflect and engage reality.

5 The point is there is no fact-in-itself that they speak of.
Fact-in-itself is fact or feature-of-reality, state-of-affair, something-that-is-the-case that exists by itself independent of human conceptions and entanglements.
If we are to represent 'fact' and 'humans' in venn diagrams, the two circles will interact 90% with each other.

6 Can the moral-fact-deniers [like PH] prove a fact-in-itself exists as really-real and is totally independent of humans entanglement?

7 My claim is,

• what is fact, i.e. feature-of-reality, state-of-affair, something-that-is-the-case cannot exists as a fact-in-itself, i.e. totally independent of humans entanglements;
  
  what is justified as fact exists as a 'package' or 'system' i.e. fact-in-entanglement-with-humans, thus cannot be totally independent of human conditions.

8 Fact-in-entanglement-with-humans entangles with humans within various framework and system of reality [FSR] or knowledge [FSK].
The most credible FSK is the scientific FSK, thus the standard bearer of reality relative to all other known FSKs.

9 Thus,

• the fact, 'Water is H20" is in entanglement with the Chemistry FSK
  
  the fact, "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" entangles with the Astronomy FSK.

So, at the mentioned of any fact, it is implied by default to include the specific FSK and human conditions it is entangled with.
To claim whatever that is a fact exists independent of human conceptions as Philosophical Realists do is not tenable nor realistic.

10 Since specific facts [even as claimed by the moral deniers] as demonstrated above are conditioned upon and entangled with a specific framework & system and human conditions,
thus justified moral facts are specific to the moral framework and system.
Therefore justified moral facts do exist as conditioned and in entanglement with the moral FSK.

11 The problem with PH et. al. is, at the mentioned of justified moral facts, they quickly jumped to their dogmatic definition of 'what is fact' [fact-in-itself] in the linguistic perspective [2 &3 ] without any consideration to the point that facts [as explained] above must imperatively be conjoined with their specific framework and system [4-10].

There are no fact-in-itself!

Views?

If you can't even convince Peter Holmes, et. al. on some shitty backwater forum, to adopt your wrong arguments, bad English and lack of logic, how are you going to convince the whole world to adopt it?

You have lots of work ahead of you

To the stupid ignoramus,

A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents[5] found that
56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism
(28%: anti-realism; 16%: other).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

Those who lean towards moral realism accept there are moral facts.
The above survey cover philosophers not merely any tom, dick or harry layperson.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 9:51 am To the stupid ignoramus,

A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents[5] found that
56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism
(28%: anti-realism; 16%: other).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

Those who lean towards moral realism accept there are moral facts.
The above survey cover philosophers not merely any tom, dick or harry layperson.

A good example of a wrong argument and lack of logic.
But maybe you'll be popular with the God-fearing religious folk, your main target audience with all their objective morals.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 9:34 am There are no fact-in-itself!

Views?

you know my views on what I consider your binary view here being incorrect. But let's assume you are correct that there are not facts about reality per se that exist without us for the sake of argument.

Here's the problem. For many of these facts about reality, the ones that we could call is facts, humans will find the same ones. Some may be up for grabs. But take pretty much every human on the planet and ask them if there is a cat in the living room and they will agree. That there is this living feline there on the sofa.

But ask them how this feline should be treated and we get different moral facts. There will be differences in degree and kind. If it is a 13 year old girl and you will also get a radically different set of moral facts

with no possible testing and translating possible to bring these views togehter.

You could also eliminate the language problem - gato vs cat - and make something out of clay. Name it for your UN gathering of test subjects 'goob'. Then ask them if a goob is on the table. They will all agree. Even if there are prepositional differences between languages they will all point at goob.

Then ask them about abortion.

If someone says goob is not on the table, I can see if he needs glasses or shift his position in the room so that the light from the window is not coming into his eyes such that he finds it hard to see goob on the table. There are steps I can take to get him to see that goob is on the table.

But value differences cannot be argued away. Not when the axioms are different.

Just as I cannot convince the Indian man that Bach is better than R. D. Burman. I mean, sometimes I might be able to. It is not that aesthetics and morals are always fixed. But values can come down to root differences that never need shift. I have no tools for temperment and taste.

Some people actually feel more at home in a world at war, for example. Argue until you are blue in the face.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 9:34 am 1 In my discussion with Peter Holmes, et. al. they claim there are no moral facts - they're the moral-fact-deniers.

2 For them there are only 'facts' i.e. defined as,
a fact is a feature of reality, something that is the case—that is, a state of affairs which is confined to the linguistic perspective, e.g.

• 3 Facts may be understood as information that makes a true sentence true.
  E.g. the fact 'Water is H20".
  
  Facts may also be understood as those things to which a true sentence refers.
  The statement "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" is about the fact Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system.

4 The problem is Peter Holmes et. al. are blinded by their dogmatism and bigotry in sticking to merely one perspective of 'what is fact', i.e. the linguistic and semantic perspective which are merely based on words and do not reflect and engage reality.

5 The point is there is no fact-in-itself that they speak of.
Fact-in-itself is defined as fact or feature-of-reality, state-of-affair, something-that-is-the-case that exists by itself independent of human conceptions and entanglements.
If we are to represent 'fact' and 'humans' in venn diagrams, the two circles will interact 90% with each other.

6 Can the moral-fact-deniers [like PH] prove a fact-in-itself exists as really-real and is totally independent of humans entanglement?

7 My claim is,

• what is fact, i.e. feature-of-reality, state-of-affair, something-that-is-the-case cannot exists as a fact-in-itself, i.e. totally independent of humans entanglements;
  
  what is justified as fact exists as a 'package' or 'system' i.e. fact-in-entanglement-with-humans, thus cannot be totally independent of human conditions.

8 Fact-in-entanglement-with-humans entangles with humans within various framework and system of reality [FSR] or knowledge [FSK].
The most credible FSK is the scientific FSK, thus the standard bearer of reality relative to all other known FSKs.

9 Thus, note the examples given as what is fact above,

• the fact, 'Water is H20" is in entanglement with the Chemistry FSK
  
  the fact, "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" entangles with the Astronomy FSK.

So, at the mentioned of any fact, it is implied by default to include the specific FSK and human conditions it is entangled with.
To claim whatever that is a fact exists independent of human conceptions as Philosophical Realists do is not tenable nor realistic.

10 Since specific facts [even as claimed by the moral deniers] as demonstrated above are conditioned upon and entangled with a specific framework & system and human conditions,
thus justified moral facts are specific to the moral framework and system.
Therefore justified moral facts do exist as conditioned and in entanglement with the moral FSK.

11 The problem with PH et. al. is, at the mentioned of justified moral facts, they quickly jumped to their dogmatic definition of 'what is fact' [fact-in-itself] in the linguistic perspective [2 &3 ] without any consideration to the point that facts [as explained] above must imperatively be conjoined with their specific framework and system [4-10].

There are no fact-in-itself!

Views?

I've dealt with your fact-in-itself straw man already. And it does nothing to establish the existence of moral facts anyway. Nul point.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 10:59 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 9:34 am There are no fact-in-itself!

Views?

you know my views on what I consider your binary view here being incorrect. But let's assume you are correct that there are not facts about reality per se that exist without us for the sake of argument.

Here's the problem. For many of these facts about reality, the ones that we could call is facts, humans will find the same ones. Some may be up for grabs. But take pretty much every human on the planet and ask them if there is a cat in the living room and they will agree. That there is this living feline there on the sofa.

The point is you do not raise more deeper questions about the reality of the 'fact' like this example, of the cat on the sofa.
With philosophy rigor we need to note the following reality for all normal people,

1. From the common sense perspective, there is a cat [animal] on the sofa. This is based on common human perception which is not reliable, i.e. vulnerable to illusion.

2. From the linguistic perspective, there is the fact of the cat on the sofa as a feature of reality, a state of affairs, or the cat that is the case.

3. To be more precise, from the science and biology perspective as justified empirically, there is a cat [animal] on the sofa. But note this is only a fact conditioned upon the Scientific and Biology framework and knowledge [FSK].
You will note it cannot be a fact by itself, except be qualified to the FSK.

4. From the chemistry FSK, that is a fact of a cluster of molecules on the sofa which is also a bundle of molecules.
Again it cannot be a fact by itself, except be qualified to the chemistry FSK

5. If we dig deeper, from the chemistry and physics FSK, that fact of a cat from common sense and biology is merely a bundle of atoms.

6. If we dig more deeper, from the chemistry and physics FSK, that fact of a cat from common sense and biology is merely a bundle of atoms. Again it cannot be a fact by itself, except be qualified to the chemistry and physics FSK.

7. If we dig more deeper, from the physics FSK, that fact of a cat from common sense and biology is merely a cluster of moving electrons and nucleus with proton. Again it cannot be a fact by itself, except be qualified to the physics FSK.

8. If we dig more deeper, from the Quantum-Physics FSK, that fact of a cat from common sense and biology is merely a cluster of quarks or sub-atomic particles. Again it cannot be a fact by itself, except be qualified to the Quantum-physics FSK.

9. If we dig more deeper, from the Quantum-Physics FSK, that fact of a cat from common sense and biology is a cluster that could either be particles or waves depending on the human interaction with it. Again it cannot be a fact by itself, except be qualified to the Quantum-Physics Wave Collapse Function FSK.

As you can see from the above, there is no ultimate reality to what is the cat on the sofa, but it imperative has to be qualified to its respective FSK which is sustained by humans.

So there is no fact-in-itself i.e. exists by itself that is independent of human entanglement.
A fact is always entangled with human activities.

Do you insist, 'the cat is on the sofa' as above is the only fact by itself?
or
there are only facts which are fact-by-its-FSK which inevitably entangle with human activities.

But ask them how this feline should be treated and we get different moral facts. There will be differences in degree and kind. If it is a 13 year old girl and you will also get a radically different set of moral facts

with no possible testing and translating possible to bring these views togehter.

You could also eliminate the language problem - gato vs cat - and make something out of clay. Name it for your UN gathering of test subjects 'goob'. Then ask them if a goob is on the table. They will all agree. Even if there are prepositional differences between languages they will all point at goob.

Then ask them about abortion.

If someone says goob is not on the table, I can see if he needs glasses or shift his position in the room so that the light from the window is not coming into his eyes such that he finds it hard to see goob on the table. There are steps I can take to get him to see that goob is on the table.

But value differences cannot be argued away. Not when the axioms are different.

Just as I cannot convince the Indian man that Bach is better than R. D. Burman. I mean, sometimes I might be able to. It is not that aesthetics and morals are always fixed. But values can come down to root differences that never need shift. I have no tools for temperment and taste.

Some people actually feel more at home in a world at war, for example. Argue until you are blue in the face.

The views on the treatment of the cat are not moral fact.
It is only a fact that they are expressing their views, but their views expressed are merely opinions and beliefs, thus not moral facts.

The principle is; whatever are moral facts must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system.

A possible moral fact in this case could be
"universally no humans ought to torture cats'
which must be justified as a Justified True Moral Fact.
I am not going into the details of this except to point out the principle.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 1:08 pm I've dealt with your fact-in-itself straw man already. And it does nothing to establish the existence of moral facts anyway. Nul point.

Where?
Based on which principle of yours?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:40 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 1:08 pm I've dealt with your fact-in-itself straw man already. And it does nothing to establish the existence of moral facts anyway. Nul point.

Where?
Based on which principle of yours?

As I've said, to deny a thing exists is to entertain the possibility that it could exist. And since I've no idea what a thing-in-itself or a fact-in-itself, or an event-in-itself could be, I'd never dream of entertaining their possibility. Your claim that I think facts-in-themselves exist is a straw man, which you obviously need in order to make your argument seem even remotely plausible.

I've asked you not to re-erect this straw man. It was never even in the building.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:18 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:40 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 1:08 pm I've dealt with your fact-in-itself straw man already. And it does nothing to establish the existence of moral facts anyway. Nul point.

Where?
Based on which principle of yours?

As I've said, to deny a thing exists is to entertain the possibility that it could exist. And since I've no idea what a thing-in-itself or a fact-in-itself, or an event-in-itself could be, I'd never dream of entertaining their possibility. Your claim that I think facts-in-themselves exist is a straw man, which you obviously need in order to make your argument seem even remotely plausible.

I've asked you not to re-erect this straw man. It was never even in the building.

You are ignorant of what is fact-in-itself because your philosophical database is sparse, narrow and shallow.

From the views you'd posted, it is obvious you take your facts as facts-in-themselves, i.e. they are absolutely independent of human conditions, opinions and beliefs.
In other words, you are insisting facts stand alone independent of human conditions.
You insist what-is-fact to you cannot be predicated with any human conditions.
Isn't this the view you have been insisting upon?

Where facts are not facts-in-themselves, then those facts are facts-by-others or fact-with-others.

Facts-by-others is as I have been proposing are facts-by-FSK or facts-via-FSK.
All FSK are established, sustained and managed by humans, i.e. predicated with human conditions.
Thus all facts are predicated by human conditions within its specific FSK.

Facts-by-others rather facts-with-others are not invented by others but rather they emerged in entanglement and synthesis with the whole of reality.
(this point is likely to be beyond your ken to cognize).

As such we have moral facts that are moral_facts-by-moral_FSK.
Moral facts are entangled within the moral FSK and the whole universe.
What is wrong with that?

What is critical is the fact, i.e. every moral fact claimed must be grounded on sound verification and justification based on empirical and philosophical evidences.

It is because you claimed [as implied] what is fact to you is a fact-in-itself thus claiming exclusiveness and no one can introduce a fact other than that which meet your requirement.

I have proven what-is-fact as fact-in-itself to you is limited, i.e. merely limited to the linguistic FSK.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:19 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:18 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:40 am
Where?
Based on which principle of yours?

As I've said, to deny a thing exists is to entertain the possibility that it could exist. And since I've no idea what a thing-in-itself or a fact-in-itself, or an event-in-itself could be, I'd never dream of entertaining their possibility. Your claim that I think facts-in-themselves exist is a straw man, which you obviously need in order to make your argument seem even remotely plausible.

I've asked you not to re-erect this straw man. It was never even in the building.

You are ignorant of what is fact-in-itself because your philosophical database is sparse, narrow and shallow.

From the views you'd posted, it is obvious you take your facts as facts-in-themselves, i.e. they are absolutely independent of human conditions, opinions and beliefs.
In other words, you are insisting facts stand alone independent of human conditions.
You insist what-is-fact to you cannot be predicated with any human conditions.
Isn't this the view you have been insisting upon?

Where facts are not facts-in-themselves, then those facts are facts-by-others or fact-with-others.

Facts-by-others is as I have been proposing are facts-by-FSK or facts-via-FSK.
All FSK are established, sustained and managed by humans, i.e. predicated with human conditions.
Thus all facts are predicated by human conditions within its specific FSK.

Facts-by-others rather facts-with-others are not invented by others but rather they emerged in entanglement and synthesis with the whole of reality.
(this point is likely to be beyond your ken to cognize).

As such we have moral facts that are moral_facts-by-moral_FSK.
Moral facts are entangled within the moral FSK and the whole universe.
What is wrong with that?

What is critical is the fact, i.e. every moral fact claimed must be grounded on sound verification and justification based on empirical and philosophical evidences.

It is because you claimed [as implied] what is fact to you is a fact-in-itself thus claiming exclusiveness and no one can introduce a fact other than that which meet your requirement.

I have proven what-is-fact as fact-in-itself to you is limited, i.e. merely limited to the linguistic FSK.

The existence and nature of water is NOT dependent on or 'entangled with' human conditions, opinions or beliefs. It's what we call a fact of what we call reality. And what we call a fact is 'a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true'. You've been suckered by a fashionable metaphysical delusion.

That we describe what we call reality in different ways doesn't mean that reality is 'entangled with' or dependent on us. And our blather about reality doesn't and can't magic things - such as supposed abstract things - into existence. We can always call astrology or alchemy a 'framework and system of knowledge', but that doesn't mean that there are astrological or alchemical facts.

You have not demonstrated the existence of a moral reality and moral facts, whether or not empirically and philosophically justified. And the fantasy 'moral FSK' is your question-begging invention.

Your claim, 'Moral facts are entangled within the moral FSK and the whole universe' is mystical nonsense.

Nul point.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 8:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:19 am You are ignorant of what is fact-in-itself because your philosophical database is sparse, narrow and shallow.

From the views you'd posted, it is obvious you take your facts as facts-in-themselves, i.e. they are absolutely independent of human conditions, opinions and beliefs.
In other words, you are insisting facts stand alone independent of human conditions.
You insist what-is-fact to you cannot be predicated with any human conditions.
Isn't this the view you have been insisting upon?

Where facts are not facts-in-themselves, then those facts are facts-by-others or fact-with-others.

Facts-by-others is as I have been proposing are facts-by-FSK or facts-via-FSK.
All FSK are established, sustained and managed by humans, i.e. predicated with human conditions.
Thus all facts are predicated by human conditions within its specific FSK.

Facts-by-others rather facts-with-others are not invented by others but rather they emerged in entanglement and synthesis with the whole of reality.
(this point is likely to be beyond your ken to cognize).

As such we have moral facts that are moral_facts-by-moral_FSK.
Moral facts are entangled within the moral FSK and the whole universe.
What is wrong with that?

What is critical is the fact, i.e. every moral fact claimed must be grounded on sound verification and justification based on empirical and philosophical evidences.

It is because you claimed [as implied] what is fact to you is a fact-in-itself thus claiming exclusiveness and no one can introduce a fact other than that which meet your requirement.

I have proven what-is-fact as fact-in-itself to you is limited, i.e. merely limited to the linguistic FSK.

The existence and nature of water is NOT dependent on or 'entangled with' human conditions, opinions or beliefs. It's what we call a fact of what we call reality. And what we call a fact is 'a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true'. You've been suckered by a fashionable metaphysical delusion.

That we describe what we call reality in different ways doesn't mean that reality is 'entangled with' or dependent on us. And our blather about reality doesn't and can't magic things - such as supposed abstract things - into existence. We can always call astrology or alchemy a 'framework and system of knowledge', but that doesn't mean that there are astrological or alchemical facts.

Your claim, 'Moral facts are entangled within the moral FSK and the whole universe' is meaningless, mystical bollocks.

Nul point.

You are merely making noises based on ignorance.

All you can do is merely throwing words at me [linguistic perspective] which is not realistic per se.
PH: It's what we call a fact of what we call reality. And what we call a fact is 'a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true'.

You are truly ignorant philosophically.

Whatever is term 'fact' must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within its specific FSK.

How come you are so ignorant, i.e.
reality is all-there-is,
whatever exists is part and parcel of reality, i.e. all-there-is,
the Universe is part and parcel of reality,
thus whatever exists inevitably is part and parcel and entangles with the whole universe.

What is wrong with the above argument?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 9:09 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 8:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:19 am You are ignorant of what is fact-in-itself because your philosophical database is sparse, narrow and shallow.

From the views you'd posted, it is obvious you take your facts as facts-in-themselves, i.e. they are absolutely independent of human conditions, opinions and beliefs.
In other words, you are insisting facts stand alone independent of human conditions.
You insist what-is-fact to you cannot be predicated with any human conditions.
Isn't this the view you have been insisting upon?

Where facts are not facts-in-themselves, then those facts are facts-by-others or fact-with-others.

Facts-by-others is as I have been proposing are facts-by-FSK or facts-via-FSK.
All FSK are established, sustained and managed by humans, i.e. predicated with human conditions.
Thus all facts are predicated by human conditions within its specific FSK.

Facts-by-others rather facts-with-others are not invented by others but rather they emerged in entanglement and synthesis with the whole of reality.
(this point is likely to be beyond your ken to cognize).

As such we have moral facts that are moral_facts-by-moral_FSK.
Moral facts are entangled within the moral FSK and the whole universe.
What is wrong with that?

What is critical is the fact, i.e. every moral fact claimed must be grounded on sound verification and justification based on empirical and philosophical evidences.

It is because you claimed [as implied] what is fact to you is a fact-in-itself thus claiming exclusiveness and no one can introduce a fact other than that which meet your requirement.

I have proven what-is-fact as fact-in-itself to you is limited, i.e. merely limited to the linguistic FSK.

The existence and nature of water is NOT dependent on or 'entangled with' human conditions, opinions or beliefs. It's what we call a fact of what we call reality. And what we call a fact is 'a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true'. You've been suckered by a fashionable metaphysical delusion.

That we describe what we call reality in different ways doesn't mean that reality is 'entangled with' or dependent on us. And our blather about reality doesn't and can't magic things - such as supposed abstract things - into existence. We can always call astrology or alchemy a 'framework and system of knowledge', but that doesn't mean that there are astrological or alchemical facts.

Your claim, 'Moral facts are entangled within the moral FSK and the whole universe' is meaningless, mystical bollocks.

Nul point.

You are merely making noises based on ignorance.

All you can do is merely throwing words at me [linguistic perspective] which is not realistic per se.
PH: It's what we call a fact of what we call reality. And what we call a fact is 'a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true'.

You are truly ignorant philosophically.

Whatever is term 'fact' must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within its specific FSK.

How come you are so ignorant, i.e.
reality is all-there-is,
whatever exists is part and parcel of reality, i.e. all-there-is,
the Universe is part and parcel of reality,
thus whatever exists inevitable entangles with the whole universe.

What is wrong with the above argument?

It's mystical nonsense.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 9:34 am
To claim whatever that is a fact exists independent of human conceptions as Philosophical Realists do is not tenable nor realistic.

Based on?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:41 am Based on?

Based on the rejection of the orthodoxy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-foundationalism