for moral facts to be different is to me really weird

where there is some objective truth, and we disagree on the objective truth and agree we are both correct

Because of where in the world we happen to be situated

Are you arguing that people have the same morals regardless of where they live? But that their societies can shape them to view it differently?

No. I'm saying when we say there are truths, we usually mean in the same way this chair has a true color, there is a truth in if murder is wrong

If the truth in if murder were wrong were to change based on where you were

that'd be very different than the truth of what color the chair is

🤔

That's understandable

So if I brought a chair with me that we agree has an actual color and an American said it was Red and a Englishman said it was Black would you say they were both correct?

But it would change in the long term based on the example I gave

No

That's what I'm saying

If moral facts have some truth it's really weird for it to depend on location

It's totally unlike any other truths we are familiar with

If I say murder is wrong and someone half way across the globe says murder is right, it would be kinda strange to call both of us correct unless moral fact is totally unlike the fact of the color of the chair

Who determines what is morally right or not? Or as you say, a moral fact.

well some people say it's God, some people say it's derivable from laws of logic lol

the correct moral system? I have no idea. But the fact I don't know doesn't mean there isn't a correct one.

Just like the fact I don't know if there is a God doesn't mean there isn't one

That's like asking "who decides the chair is red?"

Well.... That's a good question

I have no idea lol

Well that's what this all boils down to in the end

It's a question I want to know to know the answer too

yeah I was just trying to get across the fact cultures seem to have different moral beliefs doesn't say anything about the truth values of those beliefs

It's true cultures do have different beliefs, but that doesn't mean there doesn't exist a list in heaven of morally right and wrong actions

just like there's a list of prime numbers

Or red chairs

The most logical of course would be the "laws of logic" like allowing murder without punishment wouldn't help a country grow but have it collapse under itself

Well if you follow the "laws of logic" usually you derive some axioms you deem necessary

For a ultitarian is the concept of utility

For Kant it was the categorical imperative

Kant in particular would probably interest you because he thought you could derive morality purely logically

So a moral logical being would be more moral

Sure

An interesting practical case for this; if kantianism is true and we developed an General AI smarter than us we need not worry because it would be much more intelligent than us

and therefore much more moral

Well that's a different story in my book on that

But it is an interesting thing to think about

false equivalency between intelligence and morality