Proving What We Already "Know"

[The Grand Nudger]

If a moral world view matched the actual world, there would be no need for moral consideration, or even the term "morality."

Sure there would.  That there's such a thing as a scientific worldview is only because there's scientific consideration, and an idea of what the term refers to.  Ultimately that worldview may be wrong, but not for either of those reasons.

Likewise, there are many..many... ways that it could be that no moral world view matched the actual world - but this isn't one of them.

Consider it this way, perhaps-- a moral world view is one which models a non-generalizable context where what is true in our world is untrue in that one.  It says, "Yes, in this world, someone can be raped due to:
-the tendency of males of the species to do it
-the availability of individuals to whom it can be done
-circumstances in which it can be done"

I'll stop you at "can be".   It does not matter whether or not a person can be x-d in any world to moral realism or moral facts.  It's conceivably the case that in a world where x is or isn't bad, it still may or may not happen.   

"However, we can create a world in which:
-males can be genetically, hormonally or physically altered to limit tendency
-females can be so heavily protected (say, by surgically installed crotch lasers) that they cannot viably be raped
-males and females will be entirely segregated.
-the penalties for violation are so harsh that nobody will violate."

So, in the context of that virtual world, it is not true that rape is a thing.  Having established this solidly in our minds, we attempt to prove that this truth can be generalized to our actual world.  The problem is that it can't be, and the consequences are disasterous.

In a world where x was bad and we arranged our society so that it couldn't happen, it would still be a thing and still be bad.  It just wouldn't be a present concern.  Like damaging the wheels of ox carts while the owners are asleep.  Shitty thing to do, isn't happening...and precisely because people took concrete and factual steps to prevent it.  In a wporld where x was bad and we didn't do any of that...x...would stil...be bad.

I'll suggest again that you're saddling the idea you wish to object to, and replace with this empty truth in context phrase, with things that have absolutely nothing to do with what you're objecting to. It's a fundamental misunderstanding that you have and express in every post when you say "if things were that way..then they would be this way " well, no..and the things you're coming up with aren't just irrelevant to the idea you're objecting too..they're fucking bananapants. I can see why, if this is your field of play, you wonder how we might prove what we already know. I don't think that you ever could prove what you claim to know - but it looks like a you problem more than a we problem.

For assertions to moral facts, however, it's much simpler - even if it leaves people far lesssatisfied than they imagined they might be. All one needs to do to prove some moral fact is to show that the thing in question accurately has those attributes one assigns to it as the explanation for what makes it bad. That, for example..when you x someone, it actually hurts..and that's not just your opinion as an observer, because of some fact about yourself. That's it, that's all. You can see how, for example, the assertion "homosexuality is bad" fails that test where our favorite "rape is bad" succeeds.