Subjective Morality?

[DLJ]

He can't.  And I think I've worked out why.

What would it matter if he couldn't?

Then we'd need to hire a new consultant/rabbi.

But he wouldn't be alone.  It seems that 'moral facts' is a place-holder term; the 'if' of an 'if/then' statement.

(or perhaps it's the 'then'... who knows?)

He can't.  And I think I've worked out why.

Question to you:  Were you once a theist or deist and have since deconverted or were you never indoctrinated in the first place?

(I'm deliberately avoiding the question "Have you always been an atheist?" - which might give you a clue as to where these meta-ethicist schools have gone wrong).

I was exposed to fundamentalist Christianity at an early age by great-grandparents who raised me for a couple of years.  Plenty of it sank in for sure.

But I've never been a card-carrying member.

And FYI I don't identify as an atheist, but as an agnostic or ignostic.  Give me any specific definition of God (like Biblical Sky Daddy) and I'll probably declare as gnostic atheist for that God.  Not given a good definition, then I'm pretty open to all kinds of possibilities, more a marriage of QM and philosophical ideas than spiritual ones.
...

And I'll wager that you are not the kind of consumer who is persuaded by brand-names. You'll try something on and test it for comfort and fit or value (fitness for purpose / fitness for use).

If so, same here.

In contrast, how many times have we read deconversion stories where people have described how they hunted around for a label (Baptist, Wican, Stoicist, Aquarian etc.) before joining the tribe of atheism?  

For them it's about belonging / finding an identity (from label to self) rather than seeking knowledge and deciding whether that knowledge fits our models of reality and/or if those models need to be updated (not from self to label but from one model of the self/environment interaction to new knowledge and wisdom; the label is irrelevant).

Our Subject Matter Expert is not fulfilling our needs because he is playing the role of consultant rather than guide. All we get is 'it depends'.

We ask, which is the moral fact element of 2 + 2 = 4?  Is it the first 2, the second 2, both of them or the 4? Or is the factiness embedded somewhere in the structure of the equation?

All we get is:  
If you believe in bases 5 and above then 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact.  But if you are a member of the base 3 sect then 2 + 2 = 11 is your fact.
If you believe in Euclidean Geometry then the Pythagorean formulas are true but if you are a Lobachevskian then they are not.
Or if you belong to Religion x then orthodoxy + orthopraxy = salvation but if you hold to orthodoxy alone then you are Jewish (or catholic or whichever).

This is why it parallels, and comes across as, religion.