Objective morality is invalid (I am the contender)

I do not reject that there are "dos" and "don'ts", or even that there are "cans" and "can'ts".

More simply, reality is structured around necessary and determinate properties, laws, and relations.

And, it is exactly the acceptance of this that collapses moral anti-realism.

You claim people have constructed morality, and this is absolutely true. People construct various things all the time. But, just because people construct it does not mean that it is true, and it does not mean that there are no truths about what they construct external to the construction.

You have not shown that morality would not suffice as an example.

There is very little for me to argue against because all that you claimed was that reality has real objects and relations that work in necessary ways, and you are saying that this somehow makes morality irrelevant. But, you haven't showed why.

Interestingly, there is a contradiction within what you've said.

Near the end, you said, "so in accordance with all this, I should do that which is constructive and not non constructive/destructive."

However, this statement itself implies a kind of objective morality, though a very brittle one. You've said that we should do what we have to do, or what we tend to, or what would sustain our ability to do in general. It's hard to know exactly what you mean, but it seems to be something like cooperating with our function. You should specify what you mean. However, this is morality of some kind. Since you seemed to claim that opinion is irrelevant, that would also make this objective morality.

But, this is really the thing you were supposed to be arguing against.

When discussing morality, you claimed that, "morality which is just ideas and opinions of mankind that changes all over the world."

But, this is presupposing the argument you are supposed to be demonstrating. It's true that the usage of morality is based on ideas and opinions, but we are specifically discussing the proposition of objective morality, which would be true regardless of any opinion.

Once again, I fully accept that there are "do's" and "don'ts"

You said that, "By something that is truly valid, established as fact, is non controversial."

Many factual and valid things are or have been widely controversial. For instance, most believed the sun orbited Earth until mathematical proof suggested that it was the other way around.

You said, "Arguing about or claiming what is moral branches off into so many avenues of philosophical approaches"

A fine conclusion! However, disagreement doesn't make them all equal or insufficient.

You ask, "Where is the true validity"

But, it's you who needs to show the invalidity of objective morality.

You say, "To keep us grounded and centered, at the core foundation, when it comes to life, there are things we do and don't do in reference or in accordance. Do we get it? There are things we should and shouldn't do in accordance."

This seems to mean that we should do what we do and we shouldn't do we what we don't. But, this isn't actually a justification. Why should we construct rather than deconstruct? If the answer is something like, because it is what we do, that it a circular answer, and therefore this is logically invalid. However, even if this argument wasn't self-undermining, it still undermines the broader position that you took. Your position was that objective morality is invalid. However, if we should act in accordance with anything, that's morality. If it's objective, then you're trying, though failing, to make my point for me.

You say, "People argue whether it is moral to kill animals. It's objectively argued and subjectively argued. A case can be made for either side how one is not the other. My stance is regardless, the question remains over again, is it constructive or non constructive?"

Just because a case can be made for various stances does not mean those cases are thorough or that each stance is equal or insufficient. It's true that you can ask that question, but then, I'd be forced to ask, why does it matter whether it's constructive or not?

You say, "Whether to drink this or that, is it healthy? We let the situations speak for themselves. The blood tests, x-rays, evaluations and all like this to provide the evidence. In the presence of evidence, there's absence of arguments not withstanding delusional, non grounded, immature, ignorant individuals."

This isn't true. There are reasons that evidence is evidence in the first place that depend on more than just the bare existence of the evidence. Evidence never speaks for itself. Something only really counts as evidence within a framework of concepts, background assumptions, causal theories, and inferential rules. For example, a motionless body may be evidence of death, but the observation alone does not establish death. The same observation could be interpreted as sleep, unconsciousness, paralysis, or something else. What makes it evidence of death is not the bare fact itself but the broader physiological and conceptual framework that connects the observation to the conclusion. Even when we use more robust criteria, such as irreversible loss of brain function or cessation of circulation, those conditions do not justify themselves as evidence, as evidence cannot perform a conceptual movement on its own. They are connected to death through medical theory, empirical research, and explanatory reasoning. The evidence does not perform the conceptual work on its own. This does not mean all interpretations are equally valid. Some more completely interpret reality than others. But the fact that evidence can support or undermine interpretations already shows that evidence does not speak for itself. It requires interpretation, and interpretation depends on a larger conceptual framework.

You say, "Validity can't be challenged with a morality rebuttal."

Any proposition, valid or not, can be challenged by a wide variety of rebuttals including those that invoke morality. This doesn't make the proposition invalid or the rebuttal valid.

You say, "What is valid altogether, is the test results, MRI results, cat scan results that'll demonstrate the truth."

But, this is only contingent. There are reasons why such results must be true or false, and machines like those can and have malfunctioned in various ways, including in ways that can produce false results.

You say, "No morals to argue, no ethics of conscience to guilt trip anyone with, no debate over liberalism, conservatism. Just the facts, the truth, the validity. We might as well not even put objective and morality in the same junction. Just be an oxymoron."

You haven't shown why facts couldn't contain moral truths. So, this is just assertion with no basis.

You say, "The opposing side demonstrates that there is no understanding of what is meant by "do's" and "don'ts" in facts. In the very example given, the person said "believed."

This is a brilliant discovery. Yet, let's go back to what you first said that I was replying to.

You said, "By something that is truly valid, established as fact, is non controversial."

You mentioned "controversial", which is a matter of widespread opinion. So, I'm not the one here using beliefs first. You were implying that a lack of controversy has something to do with validity, but I showed you an example of something being relatively non-controversial and invalid at one point. Also, it's important to know that even after it was effectively mathematically "established as fact", it remained controversial for some time. This only means a lack of controversy can't necessarily provide validity, nor vice versa and either opposite.

Then, you say, "If I don't know a fact, I can believe something is true not going beyond that first prior to the knowledge......of fact. Which proves my point again, once all is established, it ends all controversy. But this also is what proves what people like the opposing side think of as so called objective morality. Just true until something else until something else until something else until something else."

The phrase, "I can believe something is true not going beyond that first prior to the knowledge of fact" seems poorly or incorrectly articulated. My guess is you meant that if you're unsure you can try to not assume an answer, but than an answer still exists. However, nothing like this would "prove" any point that "once all is established, it ends all controversy", as I've shown you, established and valid things can be controversial. Then, you suggest that objective morality is just guessing from a standpoint of ignorance until more is revealed. But, this isn't the point of objective morality in the first place. That would be because, like any other valid thing, whether objective morality is controversial is irrelevant to whether it is valid.

Then, you suggest the following:

"Objective: universally established, non immutable.

Morality: myopically opinionated, dogmatic and erratic.

Therefore : objective - morality, cancel out."

There are two issues with this. What's objectively true doesn't have to be established. For instance, mathematical relations were true before anyone thought of them. The sun existed before life on Earth did. These are objective facts. In fact, a reliance on establishment is more akin to the subjective. More importantly, you're claiming that morality is opinionated, dogmatic, and erratic. This is absolutely true of much of discourse about morality, but this doesn't necessarily concern whether there is a truth about it or not. As I've shown, controversy doesn't mean that the controversy is valid. A lot of people can be wrong. Most can be wrong. Everyone could be wrong, and it wouldn't change the fact of the matter. So, your conclusion that objective and morality contradict is not a logical derivation. It is presupposed. You have not shown objective moral facts categorically do not exist.

You say, "Everything has been explained throughout the rounds. So taking snippets of points is feeding into your misunderstanding. You can call what we should do or "do's" or "don'ts"... "morality". All you're doing is just agreeing with me as you're renaming things."

However, any use of "should" generally implies morality, as in it would be morally better if this happened or if one did this action. If, as you claim, morality is invalid, then you don't need to bother with the word should in the first place. Either we do it or we don't. It wouldn't matter either way. However, you seem to say constructive behavior is better than deconstructive behavior, which is morality. In fact, I'd say you taking part in this debate implies that you believe you hold a position that others should or that your position is correct in a way that matters. So, all of this seems to be a massive self-contradiction.

You say, "The fact is, even with so called objective morality, everybody still has their idea of so called morality. But everybody doesn't have their idea of a heart beating. Do you get it?"

But, they actually have and some still do. Can you list every single part of a heart without looking it up? Have you seen a real heart? Do you know how every part of it works? Do you know where the blood goes and comes from? I don't expect you to. And, that's because most people don't. Most people are aware of the general concept of a heart beating and circulating blood, but most are also not intimately aware with the mechanics. To say this is distinct from people having different ideas about it arbitrates on some level. What distinguishes an idea of a heart beating from another idea of a heart beating? If someone is wrong about the number of valves, is that the same idea of a heart beating? If someone never got an education about it, do they still have the same idea? If someone is a very young child who can't yet learn it, they certainly do not have a proper idea of it. If they were a young child who is told about a heart for the first time, do they have the same idea of it as you and I? What we can agree on is that there is a fact of the matter to how a heart generally works. Most people are at least somewhat aware of this. People don't tend to disagree about it, and that's because it's well established, yet it's only well established through biological science and research. And, before it was well established, hearts worked in the same way. So, the fact that people don't unanimously agree on morality doesn't make objective morality impossible. You're assuming that morality is arbitrary to prove that it is arbitrary. This is circular logic.

Then, you say, "So why should we be constructive or non constructive with a heart beating? The body is already doing it so why would I not? Why would I not be constructive if my body already naturally is?"

Some would say that the body is also in a constant process of dying. You age, your body fails, then you die. Is this constructive or deconstructive? Some people have urges to kill others. Is that constructive just because the body provided it? "Why would I not?" That is a fine question, because entertaining the possibility of an answer entertains the possibility of normativity. Reasons could include various things, for instance, maybe it is evil to do one "constructive" thing or another. Have you considered the possibility?

Then, you say, "See, with "do's" and "don'ts", they don't have to be argued, they have to be recognized. I'm trying to help the opposing side as well as other people recognize, observe what their own reality is in the order of things as being self evident. No opinions, no arguments, just "you see". You follow suit without realization. It's when you start to conflict and be contradicting to your own self and reality, you try to argue you're not and invent "morality"."

Once again, recognition is only possible through opinions, arguments, and conceptualization in general, not merely seeing. This is true even for the recognition of true things. Objective morality isn't necessarily contradicting yourself or reality. Many moral realists would say accepting objective morality is being true to yourself and to reality.

Then, you claim, "It's because we're either the type of beings we are or not. We're either constructive beings or not. Why do you think we have "do's" and "don'ts"? Do you think "do's" and "don'ts" are based on what you think, believe or a dogma or on the order of things? I think we need a refresher about what the order of things are and how these things are separate from trying to make a "thorough stance" of any kind."

Why are we either "constructive" beings or not? What if people also do things that are "deconstructive"? Can they? If it's not even possible, why even bring it up? I agree on do's and don'ts. But, even though they exist, a thorough stance can be one that completely realizes a given concept or part of reality.

Then, you say, "The evidence I'm talking about for instance was just like I mentioned regarding tests and x-rays .

It's simply that which is. It's either true or false."

All of the evidence I described was either true or false too. However, even assuming it's all true, evidence doesn't interpret itself.

Then, you say, "You're making evidence more than what it has to be. A motionless body is evidence of a motionless body. See how light I make it. A heart beating is evidence of a functioning beat, pound, thud, movement of a heart. That heart connected to all other organic systems including the brain, endocrine systems, neurological pathways, bring all to a head to encompass "do's" and "don'ts"."

Yet, all of those inferences about the brain and other bodily systems exceeded the provided evidence. More importantly, you say "a motionless body is evidence of a motionless body". This isn't evidence, this is self-evidence. It's trivially true that a motionless body is a motionless body. So, does that mean you would think nothing of it? How do you think murders are discovered? How do you think a doctor realizes that the surgery resulted in death? How do you think we come to know things?

Then, you say, "Ok, proposition, not fact. I don't believe I said proposition. I'm talking about established facts. Keyword: established. You have to catch up with my points comrade."

Well, let's take a look at our statements.

You originally said, "Validity can't be challenged with a morality rebuttal."

Then, I said, "Any proposition, valid or not, can be challenged by a wide variety of rebuttals including those that invoke morality. This doesn't make the proposition invalid or the rebuttal valid."

What this means is that, yes, validity can be challenged with a "morality rebuttal". But, even though it can, it doesn't make it invalid. If it's something to challenge in the first place, it's already interpreted as a proposition that can be valid or invalid. So, there is no necessary distinction between facts and propositions that you suppose. I've shown how valid things don't need to be established, and how even when they are established they can be controversial.

But, this is relatively irrelevant. You haven't shown that validity cannot already contain the morality.

Then, you say, "*****The point is about established fact.**** Once a fact is established, how is it not valid?"

Well, what do you mean by established? Proven? Widely accepted? Depending on interpretation, it could be established and not valid.

You say, "It is valid. If you say, we have to argue to get to facts, that's my point. I'm talking about being at the place of facts without arguing. We can get there without arguing and we can be there without controversy. Morality is arguing who's valid, who's more valid. The truth, the "do's" and "don'ts" are just the reality of the nature of the thing. Get the facts, get the test results. See it evidently for yourself. That's what I'm talking about. Theorizing, suggesting, convincing, arguing the so called best or strongest of moral points of view is just that. Arguing trying to convince validity versus what is established as such."

Well, people don't know everything. Deliberation, inference, and conceptualization are just necessary moments of getting to the "place of facts". Morality is not arguing "who's valid". You are clearly saying that the nature of humans means that morality is unnecessary. But, you haven't derived this. For instance, and I'm not saying this is my position, some would say that "suffering is evil" is a valid and objective moral truth. Even on a surface level, it seems consistent with our nature or with "construction". So, why reject it?

Then, you say, "First off, I don't know what a so called moral truth is. The very fact that you have this topic about morality proves the point."

If you don't know what a moral truth is, it was probably unwise to enter a debate about them.

"Are we debating that water hydrates the human body?"

Should the human body be hydrated?

Finally, you argue, "No, because it's established validity. Nobody has to debate that . It's not controversial. It's validity. That's why it's one of the first facts or VALID points that we learn. Debating about whether something is moral or not or so called objectively moral, the very subject itself isn't valid. It doesn't contain validity. It's debating the subject for validity. It's arguing for validity existing. If something is valid, you don't argue it. It already is and we just observe it. You have to really get this distinction. "Objective morality" regardless of the term "objective" is still a moral idea. Moral ideas and opinions can be argued to be valid. But something that's already valid is .....just ... that. This ....is ....the..... difference...... between the idea of ethics.....and the laws to our existence. The laws are already valid. Is it moral to drink water? Why would I have to argue the validity of water when water is already established for what it is? Do you get the distinction? To get it, you have to get out of the conventional thinking of actually believing morality, ideas, are a prerequisite to live. We live regardless by the order of things, natural order according to configured structure, form, fashion, make-up , etc. Get it, the..... difference...... between the idea of ethics.....and the laws to our existence. Look over the examples I gave about our physiological functions and so forth."

Why isn't morality valid? If something is valid, it can be and still does get argued about. We don't only observe it. Try to show me how every established fact was established purely through observation. Yes, objective morality is still moral. Moral ideas and opinions can be argued to be valid, and so can practically any other kind of idea or opinion. You have not distinguished between the laws of existence and morality. "Is it moral to drink water?" Yes, typically. "Why would I have to argue the validity of water when water is already established for what it is?" You wouldn't. Whether it is moral is not the same as whether it is "valid". I do not get the distinction because you provided none. You've only asserted that a distinction exists. Whether moral ideas are a prerequisite to live is irrelevant. We do live according to a "natural order", but could that natural order contain differentiation between better and worse within it? Once again, not every idea of ethics is representative of a valid objective morality. A valid objective morality would necessarily be contained in the objective laws of existence. So, assuming that it wouldn't be is insufficient to prove otherwise.

You said, "Let me give the opposing side some understanding without implying anything but going by my exact words. Whatever you know has never been controversial but just established upon observation and experience is established fact. Now if you still don't know the difference between what is fact, what is, what is not, what doing what is, is what happens and not doing is what happens or won't happen, the difference between that and what people argue what they believe could be or is valid as a moral subject or moral decision or anything, may be we need a separate discussion on what is established fact."

Whatever I know has never been controversial? Do you know what controversial means? Many things that we know have been controversial at some point. As I've already explained multiple times, bare observation comes nowhere close to establishing most of our understanding of reality. I do know what facts are. I also know the difference between facts and subjective beliefs, as I've said already. What you are incorrectly implying is that it is already given that facts cannot contain moral facts. We might indeed need a sort of discussion on what is an established fact, as it may exceed certain people's comprehension.

Then you argue, "Since you claim to have shown something, why would I argue over a fact being fact being that it's fact? Your position is that even with objective morality, we can still debate its validity. I'm asking why would I debate something that actually is valid? Answer those questions."

Why argue over a fact? How do you know it's a fact? What if you don't? What if you think something is a fact but it isn't? Do you think people know everything or that everything is so obvious? My position is that anything can be debated. Just because something is debated does not mean that it is false. You really, really, really need to get that into your mind. I'll say it again. Just because people might disagree does not mean that disagreement is warranted, and just because disagreement may or may not be warranted does not mean that there isn't a truth about the matter. So, my position would also be that objective morality is valid, and that it would be valid regardless of if people debated about it. Why debate something that actually is valid? You're already doing it.

You said, "Then you have a very far out definition of these words which I can't help . I believe the crux of this topic weighs just on those questions I asked above and that's it."

This was a response to when I said, "What's objectively true doesn't have to be established."

I do not have a "very far out definition" of these words. Established commonly means accepted, recognized, or apparent. By no means does anyone need to establish something for it to be true. I've shown why several times. I'll do it again. It is true that the moon exists? Is the moon older than life? Did someone "establish" the moon? Obviously not. Yet, it was already true that existed before it was established that it does. Isn't that kind of weird? Really makes you think, doesn't it? Well, maybe not.

You claim, "That's because I don't know what you call "objective moral facts" are. So I'm not going to be showing anything I know nothing about." Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You're specifically supposed to be showing that they don't exist, so it could potentially aid you if you began to understand.

You say, "So when I say "should", it means I should get wet when I get hit with water. The laws, right. Remember. Your bias is having you read into things. I get hit with water and the fact .........is established. Are you going to argue with the established.......fact? Don't be a fool. You can argue with yourself. I'm not wasting my time with foolishness. My body should be hydrated upon consumption of water. The order of things which I trust I've been reiterating alllll debateeee longggg. Full circle baby. This is what I do in accordance to life and evidently what I don't do that is inconsistent to neglect the order, the natural, the nature of life, the nature of a thing."

You should get wet when you get hit with water, huh? You know what, if you do happen to get hit by water, then it would follow that you might just get wet afterwards. You're right about that. Even so, this is by no means what the word should means. You talked a lot about "do's" and "don'ts", but they would really help you out here. You wouldn't say that you should get wet. You would say that you do get wet. You get hit by water and the fact that you did is...established? No, it's not. It's just true. What if you were asleep and no one was watching? Who is doing the establishing? You say that you're not wasting your time with foolishness, and I guess you're right, you must be using it wisely. It's not that your body should be hydrated after drinking, it's that it is. I fully recognize the order of things. You mentioned that you don't do is inconsistent with nature, but is it even possible? You never answered me. Is it possible to do anything besides what is in accordance? If not, then there's not even a need to mention it. And, it also establishes nothing about objective morality.

You then say, "Constructive and destructive are established. Morality is an idea."

So are construction and destruction.

You then argue, "Morality is ....an idea. Objective or subjective. You know these are controversial so therefore, you're fighting even against the reality that established facts aren't debatable. People debate when things are inconclusive, not established. Otherwise you're either ignorant, delusional, even arrogant."

The "reality" is not that established facts are not debatable. I've shown you that any proposition is debatable in practice and that this is distinct from whether specific counterarguments have merit. "People debate when things are inconclusive, not established." Absolutely flawless. Yet, whether it's inconclusive to them is not whether it is true.

You said, "See, right there. I said "should". What's supposed to be "moral" about that?"

It's just a common implication of the word. If the subject matter is not moral at all, then it becomes useless. Something either happens or it doesn't in this view rather than any mention of whether it "should" happen. Should implies better, more adequate, or superior.

You claim, "You shouldn't expect because it besides my point. I understand you're in debate mode and instead of trying to agree, you tend to look for things that aren't even there just to claim a refutation."

This was in response to when I said, "But, they actually have and some still do. Can you list every single part of a heart without looking it up? Have you seen a real heart? Do you know how every part of it works? Do you know where the blood goes and comes from? I don't expect you to."

And, this was in response to when you said, "The fact is, even with so called objective morality, everybody still has their idea of so called morality. But everybody doesn't have their idea of a heart beating. Do you get it?"

So, now you may or may not see that I wasn't merely claiming a refutation. You think that everyone has the exact same idea of a heart beating because it is valid and established. I was showing how you personally actually don't have a complete understanding of how a heart beats, while others might. Your understanding of it, and of reality in general, largely amounts to something like "a....heart......beats...." While I can agree that a heart does in fact beat, I will have accepted the core of your position in doing so. However, even the fact that we are having this discussion now may, if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt, show that we do not have the exact same idea about this topic, making it "controversial" on some level.

Then, you say, "But, if you really don't get the distinction between established reality versus conceptual reality, we've come to the end of the road really."

There is no "distinction". For it to be established, someone has to do the establishing. Upon doing so, they've conceptualized it.

You ask, "Is objective morality established through science?"

It's not established with just science, but objective morality can be studied and applied using it. Why would you think otherwise?

You say, "There are no debates about a heartbeat. There's education and information, and it's a wrap."

Actually, we are having one right now. Even though we both know that a heart beats. Strange, right? I suppose the implications likely exceed you.

You say, "Objective morality is debated all day long. Why? To prove validity."

That's excellent reasoning. I won't deny that.

You then say, "Something that's already....... already.... already valid doesn't necessitate to prove itself. It's..... already..... established."

This is quite interesting. In a way, you're approaching a coherent view. I'm still not sure why you insist on using the word "established", but if you mean that it is to trivially describe something actual and real, then this is actually, somehow, a completely correct claim. However, whether or not something is valid is irrelevant to whether we know it. So, proving that it is valid is still a fundamental way to knowing a lot of things. We had to prove math, theories, systems, and more. Many important things depend on knowledge, including what you call "construction". We don't start with knowing everything. So, just because things are true even though they don't get proven doesn't mean that the proof is meaningless. You would need to show why proof, arguments, conceptualization, and morality are all irrelevant, and accepting this debate is likely not the first step to that.

You say, "Is my heart beating a valid function? Yes. Case closed."

Incredible!

You ask, "Is it objectively moral to stop my heart beating?"

No, probably not. But, you don't have room to ask that. You're supposed to be showing why the question is already mistaken.

You then conclude that, "I can't say. Therefore, no validity is ascertained. I can't declare it. Another problem, if the debate just continues and continues and continues.....we never reach actual validity. Can't adjudicate."

You just said that validity does not need to prove itself. So, why would the outcome of any debate about something valid matter? You would need to show why objective morality is invalid, not just assume that it is. Validity does not depend on consensus. I've shown this before.

You then argue, "You just admitted the difference between established and inconclusive controversial elements. Again, fact is what is valid. Nothing to argue over. What is yet to be valid or proven as such, isn't established fact such as "morality". Being that people can't even agree whether it's subjective or objective shows it is controversial. Controversy comes from disagreement. Who disagrees about a heart beating after it being established? Perhaps a delusional person, unsound person, etc."

Established and inconclusive controversial elements? Controversy is inconclusiveness. So, this certainly adds to the mystification of "established" if that is what you meant. It seemed before to mean, in a trivial sense, something being real. But. now you seem to place it in contradiction with controversy. But, you might have meant the difference between what is established and what is both inconclusive and controversial. Yes, a fact is valid, but valid doesn't mean established, as I've shown. You're right that morality is controversial. Controversy does indeed come from disagreement, you're right about that. "Who disagrees about a heart beating after it being established? Perhaps a delusional person, unsound person, etc." Or, perhaps someone who doesn't know everything. A heart beating is a relatively poor example since it is well established. Something like climate change in the context of fossil fuels and pollution is much more controversial. But, even though it is, it doesn't mean that its effects are fake or that there isn't a truth about it. Do you know everything? Far from it. So, does that make you delusional or unsound? Well, I suppose you're not the best example for this. But, you not knowing everything is implicitly you not agreeing with every valid thing. And, that's because not everyone has established or personally understood every single valid thing.

You say, "Some people have urges to do a lot of things that are in conflict with what they are. I think I mentioned this earlier that there are "do's" as well as "don'ts". Let us not forget about the "don'ts". So where do the "don'ts" come from, what are they based on? When we're talking about this according to our bodies, we learn these things. But if we're ignorant, some that are, have been taught wrong, have been a product of an environment or even genetics, do things in conflict with themselves as mentioned. This also includes individuals that limit themselves to ideas of "morality". They can be argued out of what they thought was valid, "moral" and go the other way. Truth is constant, doesn't sway. This is why the important thing about truth, we really have to realize that which is and which isn't. Seeing something for what it is in nature, by its structure, by its function, all this communicates its laws regarding it. We don't get caught up in a lot of emotion, philosophical or various religious approaches."

So, you're implying that it truly is possible to do "don'ts", defeating the purpose of the concept. However, you seem to simply suggest that we should do "do's" instead, which could only be true if it was somehow better to be true to your nature or to be constructive which you have not only not shown, but through any showing of that you'd be contradicting the only claim you're supposed to be defending.

You ask, "Is abortion evil?"

Not categorically.

You say, "The objective people say yes for instance. The subjective people say no."

This is speculation. For instance, I would lean towards no despite being a moral realist.

You then argue, "Does abortion ultimately tear down cells so that they can't be built up, replaced and rebuilt? Yes. Just that plain. No arguments. Do you get what I'm telling you? We're trying to get to the realization of things without arguing for validity. It's already there in a plain instance."

Why does that matter? You have not explained why it matters if it is constructive or deconstructive. That's because you are invoking morality without realizing it. By implying abortion is deconstructive and therefore should not be done you are implying people should therefore act in accordance in a way to not do it. That's morality, even if you don't want to believe it. Not only that, it would be objective morality because what you've implied construction and deconstruction to be is an objective criteria. You do not need to be so concerned with arguments. Whether people argue about something does not make it invalid.

You then say, "This is completely contradicting. First you say recognition is only possible through opinions which opinions are not facts. Then you say this is true even for the recognition of true things. Facts are true things. Facts are not opinions and you just admitted recognition is of both."

Recognition is a subjective understanding, so yes, it's only possible through "opinions". Opinions can align with facts. Facts are indeed true things. There are facts about opinions and opinions factually exist. So, yes, recognition can consist of both the subjective and the objective because they are not inherently distinct in the first place.

You say, "It doesn't have to be necessary, just possible. As illustrated in my abortion example above. Moral realists so called are entitled to their ideas and opinions. Separate from facts."

If it is only "possible" rather than necessary, then the claim that "objective morality is invalid" is not categorically true. Ideas and opinions and facts are not fully separate. Here's my opinion! A heart...beats... is that not factual? I'm sure you'd accept it is. Then, you'd probably just deny that it's an opinion because opinions aren't facts. But, that's circular reasoning. Though, I doubt that concerns you.

You then argue, "What's supposed to be the difference? This almost made me laugh. Besides the word "self ", when is evidence never self demonstrated? Prove the body is motionless. Ok, as we can see, it's not moving. It's still as a statue. You complicate things making it harder on yourself. When is evidence never self demonstrated? I told you, we have to just recognize it. If you been educated well enough about the nature of things, what motion is , you can recognize it. See, we have to get back to seeing things for ourselves. That's what evidence is. Evidence is not people debating their bias points back and forth. When is evidence never self demonstrated?"

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evidence. Self-evidence is trivial or tautology. Evidence is always self-evident, but evidence is also evidence for something else. That's the reason it's called evidence. It is meant to evident of something. If it were just referring to be evident of itself, it would be an unnecessary term. As I implied before, something like a motionless body can be evidence of death, not just a motionless body. That would mean that the heart...stopped...beating... to use your terminology. Why? Dead bodies tend not to move. But, the understanding that dead bodies tend not to move so therefore this might be a dead body is not self-evident. It's an inference with the motionless body as evidence of it. So, even though evidence is never not self-demonstrated, things can be demonstrated through evidence rather than self-evidence, because things aren't usually completely self-evident.

Then, you argue, "When you see something, what is that evidence of? Exactly what that something is. Not reading into it, not implying, not suggesting, just...... seeing....for....what....it ..is. Truth is that .... which..... is."

If you take a drug and see magical ghost demons, is that evidence of magical ghost demons? Or, perhaps, it might deserve reading into it? Have you ever heard of an optical illusion? There is actually a lot of evidence out there that you can look up and see that proves that sight, or any sense, is not always absolutely reliable. In other words, what you see is not simply the truth or what is.

You then say, "Ok then the question is, is the subject really valid? If something is really valid, why question the validity? It's like saying I got this red apple and you question it's red and you say you see it's red and you say " well I question that it is". I mean I don't know how much more I can make this plain. If you attempt to add a "but this" or "however", you really believe or are really trying to argue, established reality may not be or isn't really established which is just an antithetical pursuit in and or beyond nature to no end. Then I have to question your honesty besides ......just because you resist conceding."

Why question the validity? Because you don't know it's valid. Not everything is as obvious as an apple being red. And, even then, what about someone who never learned colors? You can call them uneducated or stupid, but you're treating valid as the absolute end of controversy when that's just not realistic.

You then say, "They don't need to be established. They.....are. Not need to be.....but are. Catch right up with me. Not talk around me, not passed me, just right eye to eye. What you think is controversial is just people fighting against reality or in denial. Other than that, the controversy you're thinking of involves what you think.....is established but has never been like.....well some "moral" ideas. Like ideas you trust are objective."

So, does this mean that being established is an objective criteria? People fighting against reality is controversy, not just me imagining controversy.

You suggest, "It's because they don't go together. "Morality" is an idea once again and validity is just the truth."

Truth is an idea.

You then say to my observation that true things have been controversial, "Right, many things. Not everything. So......my point still stands. Whatever that is not or has not been controversial or can be non contestable, because of the establishment, would be fact."

Your point doesn't stand. If things can be controversial and true then your whole point of basing truth on its absence in a necessary way doesn't work.

You say to my point about this very thing, "Just complete nonsense. Off the point my friend."

That doesn't really show anything. It was actually relevant to the topic since you were so adamant about validity and non-controversy converging.

Then, you say, "I figure you say that. That's why I said earlier I'm directing you to truth so I technically don't have to argue and haven't argued. You're just fighting against the direction arguing against seeing things for yourself. So you can argue with that, not me."

It doesn't matter what you call it. It's an argument or a debate. That's because we are communicating conflicting viewpoints.

You then say, "No duh, the fact establishes itself, we just recognize.................yeah..... we've entered complete circular terrority. But it's been fun."

So, then, I was right earlier. Established, in your use, is it just the thing being the thing it is. That makes the following conclusion that "we've entered complete circular terrority" absolutely spectacularly correct.

You finally argue, "Any proposition [is debatable], not any fact."

As I've said, there isn't a necessary distinction. For instance, take the fact that the heart...beats...

That's not only a fact, it's a proposition.