“Normative” ethical theories

[Lucian]

“ moral realists think that badness is a murder fact” but what does that mean? What is badness, or wrongness. When I say that Jim hit Jill for giggles and fun, what are you adding to that beyond a label when you call it bad? If nothing, then bad is just a redundant label that adds and explains nothing. What is it to be bad? If this doesn’t entail some normative property such that there is an oughtness somewhere in the description then I am not sure we are talking ethics? That video I linked to for example stated that it is as good as philosophical truism that normative properties supervene on the natural, he is adding something there that I can see with adding. I think he is wrong, there are none. But what do you mean?

Not being a physicist, I would suggest that we are adding something when we say Nyx is a black cat. We are asserting something about that cat that can be shown to be true or false depending on the parameters. We are appealing to physical properties and these are non-normative. I don’t have to believe that the cat is black, but it would still be so. This isn’t an empty label, it does add content, but I don’t see what your “bad” adds that is in any sense realist.

So… Jim hit sally for giggles and caused her mental harm. What are the moral facts here?

Also, maybe it is time we cited people for definitions we are providing to at least see if they are accepted / standard ones? Maybe one of us is mistaken in our labels, and being a poorly educated numbskull I wouldn’t bet against it being me