Morality

[Acrobat]

What do you mean sneakily?  I keep telling you that the is ought distinction flatly states that we require at least one evaluative premise derive an ought from an is - and that we seek to supply these premises, and do supply these premises.  

Let’s go over this slowly for you.

Moral realism, implies that moral facts and values exist objectively, independent of our perceptions of them or our beliefs, feelings, or attitudes towards them.

You claim that the proposition the holocaust is morally wrong is a moral fact, which is not the same as saying the holocaust was harmful, is a fact. The former is an evaluative proposition, the latter is a factual proposition.

Follow me?

Adding your own evaluative elements to a factual proposition, doesn’t make your evaluative elements facts. Anymore so then calling cheesy pizza good, makes it a fact that cheesy pizza is good.

You claim that the holocaust being morally bad, is objectively true, that this is a moral fact. The moral nihilist indicate this is false, because evaluative propositions don’t exist objectively, because facts don’t possess intrinsic evaluative components. At best we have subjective, or relativistic evaluative elements attached by people such as yourself. The evaluative aspects exist as a result of our beliefs, feelings, and attitudes, and our perceptions, and are not independent of them, as moral realism implies.

Now tell me how this nihilist is wrong?