Veganism

[Paleophyte]

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.

...hence objective morality...?  Moral fact, cat fact, just a fact.  It's just a fact that keeping animals in the most cramped possible conditions feeding them literal garbage and then slaughtering them in the least humane way imaginable is harmful to them (and us, fwiw).  Here's a long list of scientific studies..right?

Sounds like what you've created is just facts. I have no problem with that, fact-based morality suits me just fine, but I don't think that's 'what moral fact' is about.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's a system that has moral facts but doesn't tell you what is moral? Sounds screwy to me.

That might be an effect of subjectivist deontological contamination.  Gods hand down lists and people call it "moral", so when you go looking for "morals" in the world you're looking for that subjectivist list.  What if I told you those people were very motivated to get it wrong? 

Lets talk about one.  Jainism.  There are good reasons to think about what we eat and how it's produced.  Unfortunately, jainism says that good reason is souls.  So, no animals, sure..but also no mushrooms or garlic or potatoes.  Bad luck to some poor sap who lives in a place where you have to depend on root vegetables to survive.  Guess god fucked that one up.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's a good objectivist criticism...but ofc, it's not a good criticism if objectivism is false.

That precipice exists. That ground below it exists. If you wish to argue that objectivism is false, go on with your bad self.

Similarly, when it comes to eating animals....that you have to eat, that you are a particular kind of creature on a particular kind of world, that you only have x y or z options available, that all of them are suboptimal....none of this matters outside of an objective understanding.  The preists of the almighty chicken do not care about the details of your chicken eating offense.  It's death no matter the facts of the matter.  You should have committed self righteous suicide rather than eat the chicken, and since you didn't, they're going to correct that mistake.

Right, so the judgement that eating chickens is right or wrong depends on where you stand in the hierarchy of chicken priesthood, which is a very long-winded and suboptimally entertaining way of admitting that morality is not objective.

"Should" is you sneaking in moral imperatives into this discussion when you know that you cannot defend morality objectively. It doesn't mean the imperative is right or wrong. It means that you hope it is not noticed.

Remove any human experience or judgement, and then -- only then -- point to anything in the universe that makes a moral statement about eating other life-forms. Oh, that's right, you can't. That's because morality is not objective. It is a human construct and perforce varies with the individual in question.

When I was in college, I had a history professor whose favorite quote was "History is a fable, agreed-upon". When it comes to objective morality, that truism is equally valid. That is because both history and morality are human pursuits colored by human understandings that are subject to human biases and perspectives.

Or, you could point to where in the universe moral precepts are scientifically demonstrated. Protip: you can't.