What would be the harm?

[bennyboy]

I have one question for you:  How do you distinguish between the following cases:
1)  There's an objective moral truth, and not more than one person in an argument is getting it right.
2)  There's no objective moral truth, and two or more people have different ideas about how to think, act or feel about something.

In the case of 2, where two people are not referring to any fact, that get's discarded as opinion until such a time as it meets the bar.  Moral objectivity proceeds exactly as any assessment you've ever made between fact and opinion does.  It's a non novel system.  

There's also the case of 3 - there are moral facts but neither person is referring to one.  A difference of opinion.

You can refer to objective facts, like "Human zygotes are human" or "Zygotes do not have a nervous system capable of experiential suffering." You can then make an assertion about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. Do you consider these moral facts, or do you not?

Do you believe (without stating WHICH you believe) that only one of "abortion is okay" or "abortion is wrong" can be correct?

---

The way to establish "which one is correct", in moral realism..is the same way that you establish "which one is correct" in any other factual assessment.  Which of the two has a greater command of the fullest set of relevant facts and can string that set in a valid inference to reach a sound conclusion.  The right moral answer is no different from any other right answer in that regard.

First, you have to establish that there IS a right answer, or even that there can be one.

I've given the example of abortion, and two positions: it's morally okay, or it's morally wrong. Please tell me which of these has "a greater command of the fullest set of relevant facts and can string that set in a valid inference to reach a sound conclusion."