A definition of a moral fact! :D
— Philosophim
Are you looking for a definition of moral fact? I defined it in OP. — MoK

My point is that you were stating a moral fact, but declared there was none.

Is it a fact that they are necessary, or simply a feeling and thus only an opinion?
— Philosophim
Think of pain that is evil. That is a sign of injury in your body. You look for a cure when you are in pain. Without pain, you could harm yourself more. People who don't feel pain have shorter life expectancy. — MoK

So is pain good or evil? If people who don't feel pain live less, is that good or evil? Is a shorter life expectancy good? Why? What if a person is depressed or sad at a loss and doesn't want to live? Is taking their own life good because they want to?

When you include things like reasons, you include facts.
— Philosophim
Not moral facts since there is none. But other facts are involved in a decision like a thief wanting to rob but he is aware that he might be arrested and sent to prison. — MoK

Then this would be a moral fact. If a moral decision is included through reason, then it is a deduced fact.

We have four things when it comes to morality, good, evil, right, and wrong. Good and evil are features of our experiences and we are different in telling what is good or evil in some situations like the example of the serial killer who feels good when he kills while others feel it to be evil. An act might be good but wrong and vice versa. An act might be good and right and vice versa. We mostly depend on our conscience, reason, etc. when we want to decide in a situation. — MoK

All of this boils down to a feelings and reason, and reason would be a fact of what is good and what is not. You're being abstract, so lets drill in and make it defined. Why is the serial killer evil, even though he wants to kill and believes he is good?

The majority of people think that the serial killer's act is evil and wrong. He does not. — MoK

I thought you said whatever I like is good. If more people like something than not, does that make it good? If more people liked murdering babies, would that be good then? Or if a majority of the population approved of sending Jews into a concentration camp to be gassed? If the majority liked enslaving another race of people?

I already differentiated between good and right in my previous comments. Something might feel good but it is wrong. — MoK

I missed this then. How is it wrong if there are no moral facts?

God is accepted as the moral agent by most believers. If God says "Take your son up that mountain and cut his throat." then the true believer goes up that mountain and kills his kid, because it's the right thing to do, because God said so. — Vera Mont

Yeah, that's the really sad part. Kierkegaard says that this is the essence of Christianity, and that it is irrational and unethical. To be a true Christian, a knight of faith, in Kierkegaard's terms, one must be irrational and unethical. Blind faith, absolute fideism. Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out. It's really sad stuff when you think about it rationally.

Kierkegaard says that this is the essence of Christianity — Arcane Sandwich

He's right about that. The story in a nutshell: God makes humans credulous, but with no understanding of right and wrong. Then he punishes them forever, for becoming conscious moral agents. Eventually, he finds them so offensive, he just can't forgive them without a really, really good guilt offering. Well, they don't have anything valuable enough for the magnitude of the sin, so, ever helpful, God impregnates an unwitting virgin and lets her raise a perfect demigod, for the sole purpose of having him painfully killed, in order to appease the same god who intelligently designed both mortals and the Sacrificial Lamb.

God impregnates an unwitting virgin — Vera Mont

Right, and he impregnated her as a ghost, because that's what the Holy Ghost is: a ghost. Some people say "no, it's the Holy Spirit" but then in the same breath they say that yeah it's a ghost too in some sense. Anyways, the Holy Ghost is usually represented as a pigeon (a Holy Pigeon, if you will). Was it literal or metaphorical that Mary was impregnated by a Holy Ghost-Spirit-Pigeon?

The most mind-boggling case in that sense (to my mind, at least) is the story of how Eve came to be. God created her from one of Adam's ribs. Did that really happen like that, literally? Or is this is also metaphor? But if it's a metaphor, what is the underlying comparison or analogy here? A metaphor of what? When I say something like "Her teeth were white as pearls", I'm comparing teeth to pearls, on account of their "whiteness". If it's metaphorical that God created Eve from one of Adam's ribs, then what's the comparison here? What's the actual metaphor in this case? There isn't any, so the only rational conclusion is that we should read this story literally. Now, did that really happen? Apparently not, if we are to believe the most basic facts about human biology. People don't emerge from ribs, that's just not how it works.

Was it literal or metaphorical that Mary was impregnated by a Holy Ghost-Spirit-Pigeon? — Arcane Sandwich

Could have been a nod to Leda and the divine swan. Or not. The peace dove may have been added much later. I think the ghost was always meant to be a spirit and just fell prey to translation issues.

. God created her from one of Adam's ribs. — Arcane Sandwich

The first ever clone with involuntary gender reassignment. You have a problem with that?

If it's metaphorical that God created Eve from one of Adam's ribs, then what's the comparison here? — Arcane Sandwich

It may be a reference to earlier stories of Mesopotamian peoples, where y of how the gods, deep in their cups, amused themselves by creating living things out of inanimate matter, such as mud and wood. In the Egyptian one, humans are made from divine exudates; in the Sumerian myth, a god is sacrificed and his blood mixed with clay to fashion a servant race.
Or, it may be an allusion to the subordinate role of women: a mere adjunct to, and nothing without men.
In the first version, God created fish, birds and animals in the plural, each according to its kind, and then created multiple humans, male and female.
That's what was more interesting to me: the contrast between the first and second chapters of Genesis. Also that little editorial slip:
"Gen 3:2 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: "
Obviously, both the first chapter and this bit were left over from an earlier mythology - likely Sumerian - with a pantheon instead of a unigod.
The stories are just that. Interesting, revealing of how the authors thought and of how cultures developed; not without literary merit - but still just stories. All peoples had them, clung to them, and still have them. We are a species of story-tellers.

I regret this has no bearing on the moral question. Gods are not usually moral or law-abiding entities.

The first ever clone with involuntary gender reassignment. You have a problem with that? — Vera Mont

But that's my point: how could God clone her, if there were no eggs for the clone cell? She was the first woman, right? So where did the egg come from? Did Adam have a secret ovary? Like, it gets progressively worse the more you think about it. This one is way, waaay worse than the "dinosaur thing", in my view. The kind of theory that one requires in order to defend it is just so unfeasible that I don't think that anyone can really make a coherent case for it. Folks will usually tell you that dinosaurs didn't exist, but they're reluctant to explain what this "magic rib" even is.

(edited due to severe confusion on my behalf)

She was the first woman, right? So where did the egg come from? — Arcane Sandwich

I was being facetious. It makes no more difference than how the entire earth can be covered in seawater, and then uncovered, reverting to normal, or how a bush can burn and not be consumed, or a virgin give birth or five thousand people can picnic on 5 loaves of bread and two fish, and have baskets of leftovers. These are not scientific treatises - they're myths!

I was being facetious. — Vera Mont

I know, I was just playing along.

These are not scientific treatises - they're myths! — Vera Mont

Vera, I'm not sure I need to remind you that there's people that say that the Earth was created just a few thousand years ago, and that God put atoms and isotopes that "seem to indicate otherwise" just to "test the physicist's good Christian faith". Like, I'm not making this up, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it. It's a real problem in education just at a merely institutional level, to say nothing of a cultural level.

Theistic moral systems are simply more sophisticated than atheistic ones. Jews and Christians both have 2000+ years of exploring and writing on moral issues, while a few professional philosophers every so often write about utilitarianism or Kant stretching back a couple centuries. There's simply no comparison in effort exerted. And then there's the pesky question of moral motivation where even if one found Mill or Kant compelling why one would be motivated to abide so strictly to such a system. :chin:

I'll make an exception of Buddhism and other religions of the sort. But between modern moral philosophy and religion there is no comparison.

other religions of the sort. — BitconnectCarlos

What do you mean by that?

Non-theistic systems that will invoke "religious" concepts e.g. karma, rebirth, etc.

Non-theistic systems that will invoke "religious" concepts e.g. karma, rebirth, etc. — BitconnectCarlos

Would you include the indigenous religions of the Amazonian peoples in that group?

I suppose? I don't know enough about the ideas and writings of those groups. I don't know whether they're theistic or non-theistic or what types of concepts they're working with. My post was mostly taking aim at 18th or 19th century moral systems which attempted to derive morality from a secular worldview.

Do you speak Spanish? Here is an article from La Real Academia de la Historia (España), about a clergyman called José Manuel Peramás, a thinker from the 18th Century, that lived in Misiones, Argentina, with the Guaraní people. He wrote a book called "The Republic of Plato and the Guaraníes".

https://dbe.rah.es/biografias/20789/jose-manuel-peramas

I have that book. Here is an extract, that I translated to English myself:

"No republic, comparable to that of Plato, will be able to subsist in Europe, based on its impious dogmas. It is more appropriate to ask: Does such a republic exist? Did it ever exist in the world? That is what we propose to investigate here. And we hope to be able to demonstrate that among the Guaraní Indians of America, Plato's political conception was realized, at least approximately."

(edited for clarity)

It's a real problem in education just at a merely institutional level, to say nothing of a cultural level. — Arcane Sandwich

Yup. I'm afraid I can't fix that. Stupidity is part of the Human Condition.

There's simply no comparison in effort exerted. — BitconnectCarlos

Unfortunately, the bulk of that effort was not directed toward making sense of moral issues, but justifying their religious tenets. Not just Jews and Christians, Muslims, too, have struggled to rationalize their irrational god. That doesn't make their moral system more sophisticated, just more convoluted.

And then there's the pesky question of moral motivation — BitconnectCarlos

We don't actually need an authority to give us a reason to do right. We have subjective motives, social motives and a few of us have spiritual motives.

Most gods have been constrained by some ethical consideration. But not Big Omni, supposed creator of the whole shebang. He makes the Law; he's not required to operate within that law. He said as much to Job when confronted with his arbitrary persecution of that faithful servant. — Vera Mont

Oh, I was not aware of that passage. I used other verses to challenge Christians' views.

How do you know what believers think when you don't share their belief? Where do you suppose they get their mental image of their god, if not from the holy books and clerical teaching? — Vera Mont

I discussed this topic with believers elsewhere to death. As far as I can tell from my discussions with Christians, God's nature is good and He wants us to be good like Him.

My point is that you were stating a moral fact, but declared there was none. — Philosophim

I have never said that there is a moral fact.

So is pain good or evil? — Philosophim

Pain is a subjective experience so it could be good for a masochist and evil for normal people.

If people who don't feel pain live less, is that good or evil? — Philosophim

Neither. As I mentioned good and evil are features of our experiences and have nothing to do with right and wrong. People who don't feel pain live less. This has nothing to do with morality.

What if a person is depressed or sad at a loss and doesn't want to live? Is taking their own life good because they want to? — Philosophim

Are you asking whether taking their own life is "right"? In my view, that is not based on any moral fact; any person has all right to his/her life.

Then this would be a moral fact. If a moral decision is included through reason, then it is a deduced fact. — Philosophim

The fact that a thief knows that he may be arrested is not a moral fact.

All of this boils down to a feelings and reason, and reason would be a fact of what is good and what is not. You're being abstract, so lets drill in and make it defined. Why is the serial killer evil, even though he wants to kill and believes he is good? — Philosophim

A serial killer is evil to us since the act of killing is not pleasant to us. Killing to a serial killer is good since he gets pleasure from it.

I thought you said whatever I like is good. If more people like something than not, does that make it good? — Philosophim

Good and evil as I mentioned are features of our experience so they are subjective and not objective. So we are different in calling what is good or evil.

If more people liked murdering babies, would that be good then? — Philosophim

If they do it for pleasure then it is good otherwise is evil.

Or if a majority of the population approved of sending Jews into a concentration camp to be gassed? If the majority liked enslaving another race of people? — Philosophim

People do things for different reasons or feelings. They might feel that an act is evil but right for some reason.

I missed this then. How is it wrong if there are no moral facts? — Philosophim

People think things are wrong or right based on their consciences, beliefs, and the like.

I think you are talking about the conscience that the majority of people agree with it. The conscience is however not a fact. — MoK

Conscience is your psychological state of feeling guilt when doing morally wrong things.  It is not an agreement. Morality is based on the moral code.  Moral code is in the form of "Do this" or "Don't do this". 

Morality is about whether an action is right or wrong. The point is that one needs a fact to realize this. There are however no facts when it comes to morality. Therefore, the morality is not objective. — MoK

Morality is a subject discussing what is morally right or wrong acts, principles, and the basis for the judgements of morally right and good actions of humans. You don't need facts. Maybe you need facts for the social science topics.

Conscience is your psychological state of feeling guilt when doing morally wrong things.  It is not an agreement. — Corvus

Yes, we do not have a common conscience on many things. We also have a common conscience on many other things.

Morality is a subject discussing what is morally right or wrong acts, principles, and the basis for the judgements of morally right and good actions of humans. You don't need facts. — Corvus

How could you judge that an act is right or wrong if you don't have any moral facts?

Yes, we do not have a common conscience on many things. We also have a common conscience on many other things. — MoK

But we have common moral codes. That is what morality is about. Not conscience.

How could you judge that an act is right or wrong if you don't have any moral facts? — MoK

The moral codes give you the ground for moral judgements. What do you mean by moral facts?

But we have common moral codes. That is what morality is about. — Corvus

What do you mean by moral codes?

What do you mean by moral facts? — Corvus

I already defined moral facts in OP. By moral facts, I mean a set of facts that we can derive whether an act is right or wrong.

What do you mean by moral codes? — MoK

For example in the Bible, there are 10 commandments.
In other religions, I am sure they have their own moral codes.

I already defined moral facts in OP. By moral facts, I mean a set of facts that we can derive whether an act is right or wrong. — MoK

The ancient folks derived the moral good and bad from the religious moral codes such as 10 commandments. But Kant said, that we have the practical reason we derive the moral good and bad from all actions of humans, which are universal and objective.

Moral facts sounds not appropriate and has nothing to do with moral good or bad.

For example in the Bible, there are 10 commandments.
In other religions, I am sure they have their own moral codes. — Corvus

Yes, somewhere in the Bible, ten Commandments, God says that you should not kill. In other places He says kill everybody but virgin girls who you should keep for yourself, Numbers 31:17-18. So, we have a problem with what we should do in a situation, kill or not kill!

The ancient folks derived the moral good and bad from the religious moral codes such as 10 commandments. But Kant said, that we have the practical reason we derive the moral good and bad from all actions of humans, which are universal and objective. — Corvus

I don't think that moral right and wrong are objective and universal.

Moral facts sounds not appropriate and has nothing to do with moral good or bad. — Corvus

Moral facts are required if morality is objective.

Moral facts are required if morality is objective. — MoK

You haven't answered what moral facts are. You just said moral facts are required. If you don't know what moral facts are, how can you say it is required?

You haven't answered what moral facts are. You just said moral facts are required. If you don't know what moral facts are, how can you say it is required? — Corvus

Do you want me to give you an example of moral fact? How can I give you one when there is none?

Do you want me to give you an example of moral fact? How can I give you one when there is none? — MoK

The point is not whether it exists or not. The point is it is nothing to do with Moral good and bad.
Read some Kant. He says we all know what moral good and bad is from our practical reasoning which is universally objective. You don't need moral facts which seems a dubious word.

The point is not whether it exists or not. The point is it is nothing to do with Moral good and bad. — Corvus

Moral facts are required if we want to derive whether an act is right or wrong.

Read some Kant. He says we all know what moral good and bad is from our practical reasoning which is universally objective. You don't need moral facts which seems a dubious word. — Corvus

How could morality be objective when there is no fact/right premise that we can use to conclude whether an act is right or wrong?

How could morality be objective when there is no fact/right premise that we can use to conclude whether an act is right or wrong? — MoK

It is the moral code still the base of the most moral right or wrong. You need to read the 10 commandments, and reflect on the many moral rights and wrong now. They are all related, and originated from the code.

I have not heard of Moral Facts before, hence I am not sure what it is, and why its non existence is the reason for moral subjectivity. Maybe it doesn't exist, because it has never existed in the first place?

And as Kant said, we know what moral good and bad are by simply reflecting on the human actions by our practical reasoning which is universal and objective.

As far as I can tell from my discussions with Christians, God's nature is good and He wants us to be good like Him. — MoK

Yes, of course. They learn that in Sunday school and just keep repeating it, because it sounds right, feels right and gives them some reassurance that, if only they try hard enough to deserve his favour, God will make everything all right. Most of the Christians I've met - sincere, half-hearted or cynical - haven't read very much of their holy book. Or else, they wave off the nasty bits of their religion's underpinnings with 'interpretation': "It doesn't mean what it says; it's metaphorical or allegorical or lost in translation...."