If it wasn't for religion

[The Grand Nudger]

You seem to be stuck Acro.  Incapable of communicating any evaluative premise that helps you derive your oughts from your is, and unwilling to argue in good faith in that regard.  

The two are probably related. If it weren't for religion..perhaps you wouldn't be so stuck...lol?

It may be the case that the evaluative premise which leads to your deontological conclusions was simply never expressed to you. You're repeating the answer from your moral schema, but not how that answer is derived, because you just don't know. This is common to deontological claims. We use them as shorthand for moral reasoning. We supply them to our children, because..for the most part... it's more important that a child understand the expectations and general rules under which we operate than how we arrived at them.

If there actually is some difference between religion and no religion then this indicates that the evaluative premise being used is specific to the religion. If it isn't, then there is no difference between religion and no religion and your thoughts on the matter resolve to incoherence. So long as you insist on distancing yourself from your superstitions then you actually can't communicate that premise. So long as you fail to establish the veracity of whatever superstition is operative...then you will be incapable of establishing that your evaluative premises are, in any sense, factual, let alone moral facts as opposed to some other type of fact.

Or, it may be that there is no evaluative premise whatsoever, in which case you're just expressing the hanging assertions peculiar to your superstition, not a valid deontological claim derived from a realist apprehension. If we allow, as a non natural realist might, that we don't infer our moral truths as facts that we can communicate but intuit them directly as something like a self evident axiom..then here again we see no necessity of religion, and here again..your comments on the matter of there being some difference between religion and no religion resolve to incoherence.

You've placed yourself in an unenviable position where you aren't wrong so much as you've not allowed yourself any grounds by which you could be right. You are either unwilling or incapable of communicating any means by which you have derived your ought, or are unwilling or incapable of communicating any intuition specific to superstition and necessary to a realist conclusion.

-Moving along

And I am, the ought here is a fact. It’s interesting that you choose to say it “may not” be a fact itself, as opposed to “it’s not a fact”. It suggest to me that you’re not in complete denial here.

Have I been unclear? You've had two threads worth of this already. You....are.....speaking...to.....a.....moral.....realist. You need to scrub this "denial" trash right out of your shitmouth, lol.

In good faith, I simply allow that it's possible that whatever premise you have failed to supply may be some type of fact - I haven't heard it because you haven't offered it so I couldn't comment on whether or not it's factual. You'll need to decide what it is, and if there is one, and communicate it to me, before I could make any attempt at a determination. Above, what I see is that you're drifting between a non naturalist and naturalists concept of moral realism. You assert on the one hand that you observe some empirical fact about the universe which informs your deontology..but this is contested. On the other hand you maintain that you do not observe this fact but, instead, intuit as much as being self evident. Beyond neither claim supporting your overall contention that there is some difference between religion and non religion....these two secular approaches to moral realism are directly incompatible with each other. Your ought is either derived or directly apprehended. Fact, or intuition.

Take the example of Poca, the poster directly above me. The very last portion of that sentence describes a purported fact that grounds pragmatist thought on the matter. I'm taking a liberty here by supplying moral reasoning and poca may choose to amend it or reject it, but...the general form of the statement (if we proposed it in full) is-

We should avoid doing bad things | in order to make life easier and more prosperous to every individual in the group.

Before the line is our ought, after is our purported fact - the evaluative premise. The purported fact is not a moral fact, it's an empirical fact. To wit, that bad things™ make life harder and less prosperous. Non natural realism, realism by intuition..makes this distinction. It is not on the basis of an empirical fact, in non naturalism's estimation...that we hold something to be a moral fact or a moral truth. Similarly, it would not be on the basis of some purported empirical fact of the universe..in your case, that it supplies goals and aims, that we hold some thing to be a moral fact or moral truth. If you directly apprehend that you shpould not do bad things, no reason..full stop..pure intuition....then no empirical fact is required and there is no empirical fact for anyone to confirm or to deny. Either they have a similar direct apprehension or they don't..but since such an apprehension isn't required for a realist deontology...we're right back to square one, aren't we?