Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Mister Agenda]

I think alot of the confusion arises with the use of the words right and wrong in this context.

If objective morality (OM) does not exist, then the words are being used naively and incoherently. It doesn't make sense. What do i mean by this?

The words right and wrong ONLY exist in relation to facts.

A fact is something that is true or exists REGARDLESS of anyone's opinion, preference, taste or desire.

Let me use some examples.
It is a fact that the earth rotates around the sun. It does not matter what i or anyone's else's opinion, preference or desire is, the earth rotates around the sun. If i said the sun rotates around the earth, then i am wrong. I am only wrong because the statement was in relation to a fact.

If i sat an exam, and the question asked was, "does the sun rotate around the earth" and i answered with "yes", then i would get a cross. Would i get a cross because of how the examiner or marker feels? There preference? Desire? No. They would give me a cross because they would compare my answer against the FACT.

If i said chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake, i am neither right or wrong because it is not a fact that chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake.
Suppose you sat an exam and the question was asked, "does chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake?" Well, if you said yes, will you get a tick or a cross?
Well, you wouldnt get a tick or a cross, because it is not a fact. There is no fact if chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake.

Suppose you said yes, and somehow you get a cross, well you would immediately see the marker or examiner. How could the examiner justify giving you a cross? Suppose they said carrot cake tastes better than chocolate, but you prefer chocolate cake over carrot, then who is right or wrong? No one.
You cannot give a tick or a cross.
This is because taste in food is subjective. The words right and wrong cannot be used in relation to non facts.

So you actually do not understand the difference between morally right or wrong and factually right or wrong?

BTW, if you say you think chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake and you actually think that, your statement is correct: right. If you say you think rapists ought to be stopped and prevented from having a chance to rape again; and that's actually what you think; again, your statement is correct: right. It's a fact that this is what you think.

It's also a fact that most of us have decided that rape is bad enough to have cops kill you if you don't surrender, and if you subjectively don't agree with that assessment, it won't keep you out of jail. I think there are objectively better and worse ways to run a society, and one that let's rapists do as they will is worse than one that constrains them, all other things being equal. I think that the good of society overrides the freedom of the rapist. But we have to agree that society is better off with rape being illegal to agree on this. I think it's the natural conclusion for anyone who is empathetic and can see how such a society is in their own best interests; but if we don't share that, you're going to reach a different conclusion. That's the subjective part.