Proving What We Already "Know"

[The Grand Nudger]

It's an imposition of others-- either a definition of the word "bad," or an attempt by others to elicit feelings by manipulation.

Take in case the abortion issue.  Is abortion "bad?"  It is a kind of Shrodinger's cat-- it is both bad and not-bad (or maybe even good) until the question is brought into resolution by asking a particular individual.  For example, if you were a biologist watching in horror as the greedy humans you mentioned destroy our rivers and oceans, you might be tempted to go full-on 12 Monkeys and release a virus that made most of the species infertile.  In that case, you might see abortion, miscarriage, murder and sterility as tremendous goods.

That's a strong affirmation of fundamental subjectivism.  However, under subjectivism..things are not good-and-bad, like schrodingers cat, until someone is asked.  Things are not good or bad at all outside of a personal opinion.  Moral statements to the contrary are not indeterminable, they are determinable, and wrong in point in fact.  They purport to report some fact about an object, but do not.  Instead, misreporting a fact about a subject.  

Essentially, we'd need one of those decoder rings from a cracker jack box to figure out what fact, if any, they were actually reporting - and, fwiw, I agree that plenty of moral statement's are exactly like that.  Knowledge like that is even easier to prove than realist knowledge.  I think it, therefore It Is that I think that-  aaaand scene.   Personally, I don't have any trouble whatsoever seeing the bad in abortion (or murder, or miscarriage, or sterility).  

This is why context is important.  In the context of the majority view of the human species, foulness of vital necessities is bad-- river water, air and so on.  Very, VERY few would argue otherwise.  But is it intrinsically bad?  No-- only in that context, or that of other organisms who depend on the same resources for their health and survival.

So much for the terms scope and context and truth in context referring to facts.  That they refer to collections of personal opinions and utilitarian advantange is pretty explicit above.  Additionally, it's useful to reiterate that under subjectivism, purportedly moral objective statements are not "true in context" - they are false..because..... they fail to accurately report those facts they purport to report - even if they do report some other actual fact.

What about an organism that found our water and atmosphere intolerable?  Presumably it would recoil in horror, then get to the task of removing all the icky organic organisms, and reconstituting oceans and air to its own "good."

Maybe it would, but I'm not convinced that the set of bad things is exhausted by the set of things creatures recoil from.  Human behavior strongly suggests otherwise.  Hate preachers caught under a massage therapist named Manuel - you probably have addictions or habits. Then there are the positive examples - where people reject clear utilitarian advantage and deny their own persuasions and opinions. What do you make of those sets?

Here, the "context" is disproving what you purport to report as an objective fact.