(March 23, 2026 at 7:48 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Moral propositions describe what should or ought be - moral facts are what those statements are premised upon. Can you tell the difference between the moral proposition that we should not play with our peckers... and we should not assault our SO's? Is there any difference? From my pov, they're actually both premised on the same (alleged) moral facts. Facts of harm. Where one fails and the other succeeds is in getting those facts right. I approach arguments for vegetarianism and veganism in the same light, and that's where they very often fail. They purport to report a fact that would compel me (insomuch as anything does..as above), if it were true, but fail to accurately report on that (or those) facts.
Then what you're talking about isn't a 'moral fact', it's an objective one. Does playing with your pecker cause harm? Not really. Here is a long list of scientific studies. Does beating your spouse? Yes. Here's another long list of scientific studies. What you're talking about isn't moral fact, it's just fact.
