Abstract Truths cannot be established by Scientific Facts. Moral Truths cannot be derived from observation.
Its like saying Arithmetic was invented through observing Apples and Bananas.
Discussion
Well sir that's the classical argument for sure.
But I do also wonder if two tribes, each following a different moral value, were put against each other in a contest such that one tribe survives and the other does not, could it not be said (controlling for other variables) that their morals proved to be objectively better. That is objective rather than subjective, but only determinable by observation and in hindsight.
Probably out of my depth here, not my wheelhouse.
I get what you're saying. The mere fact that an evaluation is being made on which tribe was "objectively better" requires a subjective presupposition, otherwise how can it be known it is better?
What is keeping someone from declaring the dying tribe from being evaluated as the "better" one?
Well my proposition is that survival of the fittest is a way to prove objective moral value. The axiom is that the survivor is the fittest.
Having a Value Axiom proves that the conclusion is NOT an "objective moral value"
Its an evaluation based on the arbitrary axiomatic framework.
Mental frameworks always precede observables.
I don't think you can make any logical argument without an axiom. Nothing exists in a vacuum.
I'm not saying Axioms by themselves are illogical. Moral axioms cannot be derived from observables, thats all.
They're "good" or "bad" because of some arbitrary Moral claim, within a relativistic worldview.