It wouldn't be coming from anywhere except your intuition. That's the problem.
You can't derive oughts from an is, Hume was right on that. And the logical positivists and emotionalists were correct in that all moral statements boil down to just yay/boo responses that have no objective grounding, unlike statements of physical fact.
Moral language is quite different to other language, I'm afraid.
Every moral injunction, like 'You shouldn't punch infants' etc, can always be met with a 'Why?'. It's why all the way down. For most other fact statements there is a bottom point where it simply is and can be verified and falsified as such.
Saying that Biden is POTUS and a human is entirely different to saying that murder is wrong.
You can't derive oughts from an is, Hume was right on that. And the logical positivists and emotionalists were correct in that all moral statements boil down to just yay/boo responses that have no objective grounding, unlike statements of physical fact.
Moral language is quite different to other language, I'm afraid.
Every moral injunction, like 'You shouldn't punch infants' etc, can always be met with a 'Why?'. It's why all the way down. For most other fact statements there is a bottom point where it simply is and can be verified and falsified as such.
Saying that Biden is POTUS and a human is entirely different to saying that murder is wrong.
