It reminds me a bit of Gnosticism. Gnostics had secret knowledge only the initiated can understand fully. — schopenhauer1

Yes. However it seems to me this principle seems to operate in almost any arcane 'knowledge' area, whether it's Platonists, Scientologists or QAnon.

Is there just one example of good evidence amongst the thousands of claims and tall tales that the UFO brigade have generated? I notice you haven't gone down the Bob Lazar rabbit hole as yet. :wink:

:up:

But some people think the disclosure will prove all the skeptics wrong. It'll happen soon by X date, with X person. — schopenhauer1

Yes, to me it has the same rhythms as the second coming. The alien rapture is nigh - we can read all the signs….

If it's harmless, let them have it. — schopenhauer1

If. I guess there’s the potential that such beliefs may lead to harmful practices, like those of cults and religions. For now it seems the the greatest harm is fleecing people at conferences and via merchandise.

As to grinding, chronic issues, those become the "norm" over time and don't independently tip the scales to "not worth living". — LuckyR

I have spent 35 years working with people who have experiences of complex trauma and abuse, some were tortured in prisons overseas, some were, as children, sexually abused by care givers in horrific ways. Many people who undergo such things never recover, their brains seem to be rewired by the trauma. The high levels of substance misuse and suicide for this cohort are indicative. The assumption to date is that in some cases counselling or medication can assist recovery. But recovery eludes many people who wrestle with trauma for years and some, understandably, give up.

Clinical depression is notorious for it's roller-coaster trajectory of ups and downs, that is how you're feeling is likely temporary. — LuckyR

I have read two suicide notes in the past ten years from people who used precisely your term, e.g., 'I can't cope with the roller coaster ride any more.' It's hardly temporary if it's a continuous cycle. The experience of this is exhausting and every time you seem to be feeling better, you are conscious that just around the corner is another crash.

I think Steven Greenstreet pretty much hit the nail that there is a group of UFO aficionados who essentially cross-reference each other. I don't think all of them are necessarily lying, but rather embellishing or falsely attributing unknowingly. — schopenhauer1

I think this is the correct assessment. I followed Greenstreet fairly closely a few years ago when I was bored.

I think the UFO/alien folks are looking for meaning beyond the mundane. It also gives a sort of hope- that something bigger than humans is out there and that their beliefs would be vindicated all along. — schopenhauer1

Agree. There's a religious element to this wherein people see a kind of transcendence from everyday humanity, a way of re-enchanting the world via a kind of techno-spiritual movement. And I've noticed that once committed to this thinking, it is almost impossible to shake people, even with evidence. It becomes a faith-based system that is impervious to outsiders, who are either 'idiots' or part of the system's duplicity.

Hence my observation that the argument against suicide is: it's a permanent solution to a TEMPORARY problem. — LuckyR

Not always. Don't forget people who have degenerative illnesses who would prefer to die than continue to experience suffering. Also people who have experienced traumatic events (prolonged sexual abuse, etc). The memories and pain - the PTSD may never go away either. Suicide may feel like the only method to gain permanent relief.

:up: Bad syntax on my part - I meant often amongst those who contemplate suicide. Of course we'll never know how many alleged 'accidental' deaths - crashes, accidents, overdoses, etc, are attributable to suicide, or how many people have suicidal thoughts at points in life without taking action. 13.2 million Americans are thought to have suicidal thoughts in a given year and it is the leading cause of death amongst young people aged 15 to 29, so it is not uncommon.

Thanks. That makes sense.

I think it's often the case that people find that there are fewer reasons for living than there are reasons for dying. Sometimes those people choose suicide. It's a common enough phenomenon and there might be many reasons for it. It's been interesting to read people's responses to your OP. What are the least helpful answers here?

For fun's sake, let's say it's all true. The government has aliens and alien technology and have for years. If they were to disclose this, what would be the best way to do this understanding social psychology? — schopenhauer1

The issue for me is the term "the Government" what does that really mean? Does this suggest a single, monolithic, united and coherent group who has consistently acted in unison to maintain such a secret? Or are we saying a secret body which keeps secrets - attached to government, but not really part of governing? The mind boggles.

To me it is like the term 'they'. It's always 'they' who lie to us or do bad things to us. 'They' don't want us to know the truth. 'They' are making money out of it. 'They' are responsibly for disinformation, etc, etc.

That said, this would a massive story if true and I would imagine there would be a risk of unrestrained anger, panic and scapegoating. Not sure there would be a good or entirely safe way to reveal this.

Nicely put. I remember Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about what it might be like for an advanced alien to talk to us. It might be a lot like when we talk to a chimp.

You've heard of Fermi's Paradox? "If intelligent life is plentiful in the universe, then where is everybody? We should have been visited." — BC

Never thought that one a particularly useful paradox. If aliens have sufficiently advanced technology to get here from Christ knows how many light years away, and defy laws of physics as we know them, then I would also conclude they might have capacity to visit without us being aware of their presence. The big surprise really would be huge silver saucers in the sky - more likely to be the Russians. :razz:

Sure but I was referring to government officials not people in general.

Cool. I may make some more useful comments under that pervious explanation later.

So in a way, you can make a matrix like this:

The institutional distributor of information matters for the public (Is the info coming from a "legitimate" institution like government agencies, or is it coming from your Uncle Joe).

Sources matter for the information gatherers: (Is the info coming from "legitimate" credible witnesses and accounts, or from bad actors?

Evidence matters for information gatherers and the public (Is the info first hand accounts, are they recorded, do we have any physical artifacts? Have they been analyzed for material compos ition, biologics, and comparative design? — schopenhauer1

Sure - there's many ways to do a risk matrix.

I imagine that the main concern (if true) would be are they the product of a foreign power or a homegrown terrorist? One can ignore one or two eye witnesses but not so easily a plethora of accounts. I wouldn't think aliens is the first idea people go to, unless they already happen to think aliens are a given.

UAP does not entail aliens; the concern is that a foreign government might be using technology beyond ours. — Relativist

Yep.

My sense is perhaps this: In the current world of risk management and security, and risk mitigation matrixes, committees and organizations investigate any number of odd things because if they don't they may be seen as neglectful. And there's alwasy the quesion, what if, by not investigating, they miss something critical?

Yes, so you are attributing it to psychological phenomena, something like mass hysteria or public psychosis. — schopenhauer1

No, I am saying this is a candidate explanation. I don't have a firm grasp on what is happening, who is seeing what and what is real and what is media driven and what may be viral hysteria.

What should the public think of it? — schopenhauer1

Well, for my money, until we actually have something demonstrated to us, we really should suspend our judgement on this 'phenomenon'.

[

I am more than willing to change my mind if someone gives me good reasons to. — Bob Ross

That's what people say, of course. But somehow no one ever provides good reasons, right? :razz:

Let’s parse this argument. You are saying:

P1: If moral facts exist then societies could not turn to killing people indiscriminately.
P2: Societies have turned to killing people indiscriminately.
C: Therefore, moral facts do not exist. — Bob Ross

That would be a bad argument and I apologize for lazy wording. I was aiming for a quip. I guess my point was an observation not an argument. Why is it that no matter what the moral system or moral facts people are convinced of at any given time, the killing continues. Could it be that morality is chimerical?

Sam Harris just blanketly asserts that wellbeing is objectively good: his approach to metaethics is to avoid it….. — Bob Ross

Well yes, as I say he has decided, not without precedent, that wellbeing should be the foundation of morality because harm to wellbeing appears to be a good indicator of what is bad.

Many times that is the case, but don’t you agree that it is possible for a human to completely go against their nature qua animal in accordance with only reasons they have for it? — Bob Ross

Not sure. How would we demonstrate when this happens?

What do you mean by “essentialism”? — Bob Ross

I take this to mean that there are essential characteristics of what it is to be human. For instance, that gender is unchanging that humans can be defined by traits like the ones you noted.

What you are describing here and with Harris’ “approach”, which is really a form of moral anti-realism, is that subject’s set out for themselves, cognitively or conatively, ends for themselves which are subjective (or non-objective to be exact); and somehow because of this there are no objective goods—just hypothetical goods. Viz., a hypothetical good for basketball would be, under this view, something like “if you want to be good at basketball, then you need to practice it” or “if we want to have fun, then let’s invent a game called basketball”; but, importantly, the examples I gave are NOT convertible to hypotheticals. “Lebron is a good basketball player” is not convertible to a hypothetical: it is a categorical statement which is normative, because it speaks of goodness which is about what ought to be. E.g., the good farmer is not hypothetically good at farming. — Bob Ross

I'm not sure I understand this argument very well. Might be me or the wording used. If you can keep it simpler and briefer it might assist.

I forget, are you borrowing from Aristotle's notion of teleology here? The purpose/functioning of a thing?

If basketball is about skill and winning, then Lebron is a good basketball player (I don't know who this is but I can make inferences)? You believe human life can be assessed similarly and has a telos? We can agree as to what constitutes good - based on teleological grounds, which you believe are objective?

Why is the fascination with UFOs back? — schopenhauer1

Not sure but I expect it has a lot to do with people's fear and expectations about the future - AI, technology, politics, etc. I think Jung saw UFO's as an emerging mythology triggered by present day concerns. But media primes us for this stuff and websites abound with conspiracies attached to this narrative. US writer and psychologist David J. Halperin seems to argue they are fear of death and that UFO's preoccupy us when our ontological safety is threatened.

I wondered about that, but this article says religious people are less likely to believe in UFOs than are atheists. — Hanover

I've known quite a number of atheists who believe in UFO's, ghosts and Bigfoot too. We tend to forget that atheism only refers to disbelief in one thing.

Interesting question. Our Liberal party has been a Tory party. The name an accident of history. Our Liberals are more aligned with and sympathetic to US Republicans.

Perhaps Fraser? It was astonishing how much he improved after he left office. — Banno

Yes... I noted also that Fraser thought Hawke/Keating were too 'right-wing' and pro-business when they floated the dollar and deregulated the labour market and let treasury call the shots.

So the issue is, Federally, how much damage are they doing to themselves, if any? Or is the brand name now irrelevant? — Banno

I'm not a close follower of politics but I suspect the game is changing. It's not that the brand name is irrelevant, perhaps it's more a case of how brands function - there may be more mobility in what they can align with. But only if the public buy it. And I guess Dutton thought he would try something new in the hope it would resonate? How else to understand it?

And how long until they hand whatever reactors they succeed in building over to Gina Rinehart? — Banno

If she were smart she could almost be Musk to Dutton's Trump...

:up:

Did you see this?

History doesn’t corroborate your position: rather, it tends to function as a tendency towards flourishing for an in-group. There have been tons of societies that do not generally care about the suffering of other people outside of their own group. — Bob Ross

I think history may have demonstrated that moral facts don't exist and societies can turn to killing people indiscriminately fairly quickly. Particularity those cultures run by those who think they own the truth.

Anyway - let's move on to the next part since we aren't going to agree on truth and facts.

And thanks again for engaging with such thorough responses.

In relation to your example about stealing

What we can see here, is that we have a form of moral objectivism which is a form of moral relativism; whereof each objective good is relativistic to some teleological structure such that what is good is fundamentally about what best suits and sizes up to the teleology of it. — Bob Ross

Agree. And I have already alluded to this approach myself that we can set a goal and reach this objectively, but the goal itself is subjective. This is how Sam Harris seems to arrive at wellbeing as a moral foundation.

We see here that this view inherently admits of evolutionary teleology, which is a hot take these days, so let me speak a few words on that real quick. The idea that biology supplies us with teleology has lost all credence nowadays, but it is easily recoverable by understanding that we behave as if it does provide a telos. — Bob Ross

As you suggest this is a contested idea and I have no way of determining whether you are correct about this.

Back to the good human. In order to understand what a good human is, we must understand (1) the nature, teleologically, of a human and (2) how a human can behave so as to align themselves with it. There is a ton I could say here but to be brief, human’s have rational capacities with a sufficiently free will (that can will in strict accordance to reason—to cognition—over conative dispositions); and this marks them out, traditionally, as persons. A person—viz., a being which has a rational nature—must size up properly to what a rational nature is designed to do. Some of which are the intellectual virtues like the pursuit of truth, pursuit of knowledge, being open-minded, being intellectual curious, being impartial, being objective, etc. The one important right now, for your question about stealing, is Justice. — Bob Ross

I find this paragraph riddled with assumptions I am either skeptical about or cannot accept as true. I see no good reasons to endorse essentialist accounts of human behavior, so the notion of a teleological human nature is contentious and unsubstantiated.

I believe our use of reason is directed and shaped by affective responses, with reason often serving as a post hoc justification for emotional responses. I tend to hold that reason follows emotion, so what is often described as a 'rational nature' is better understood as rationalization rather than an innate rationality. I don't accept that the qualities you have listed here (pursuit of truth or knowledge or impartiality) are anything more than contingent factors shaped by culture and language, and I don't think we are likely to arrive at an agreement about what such values would look like in practice. I also think several levels of expertise would be needed to assess the contents of this paragraph in full.

I do thank you for clarifying where you are coming from and I respect the amount of thought and effort you have put into this. You seem to really crave certainty. I tend to be more appreciative of uncertainty. I suspect our dispositions are responsible for where we land.

I don't think it is worth us taking any more time on this (for now) since we do not share enough presuppositions to continue and we are bound to stick to our guns no matter what the other person says.

I don't think we've had a Liberal Party in Australia in some years. Old school conservatives and 'wets' were overtaken by radical free marketeers and culture war wankers. And conversely, the Labor Party tries to appeal to business and prosperous white collar people, while tradies increasingly see themselves as small business owners and Liberal voters, who often resent welfare spending. The electorate also seems to have changed. And who'd be a politician these days anyway? Most people instantly hate you, or think you're a lying, narcissistic hypocrite.

It's aliens. Late in the year 2025, Donald Trump, through manifest incompetence, started a nuclear war that destroyed much of the earth. Aliens have arrived to try to set about some solutions in order to change history and avoid the conflict.

Of course, the Buddha was writing prior to ideas of Nietzsche and Jung, which throw absolutism of good, evil and ethics open. — Jack Cummins

Of course the person known as Buddha did not write and never directly contributed anything to what we know today as Buddhism. The writings came centuries after he died. Oral accounts did until then. How do we even know what Buddha may or may not have really said?

Because it enables us to enact what is actually good; and anyone who doesn’t want to enact what is good must be either evil, ignorant, or a lunatic. Don’t you agree? — Bob Ross

No. I don't think things are as simple as this. But it tells me a lot about why this model appeals to you. You appear to be an absolutist.

So, then, if we by-at-large hate the jews; then we would be correct to extinguish them under your view. It’s the same glaring issue over and over again. — Bob Ross

Curious that you miss the point over and over again. It's this.

We are not isolated nomads, indifferent to the fates of others. Just consider what it is to be a person. We are all invoked in webs of affinity and webs of sympathy and acquaintance. We are connected to others. We don’t (generally) want others to suffer. We are a social species. We support behaviors which support such human dispositions. — Tom Storm

I have consistently argued that morality functions pragmatically and aims to provide a safe, predictable community that minimizes suffering. The fact that you keep arguing that I might just as well advocate anti-social or violent behaviour is absurd.

Your argument is similar to those religious apologists who maintain that if there wasn't a god there would be no morality and people would steal and lie and murder all over because only god can guarantee morality. Looks like you have just substituted god for the abstraction, truth.

Can we explore an example of a moral truth? What objective truth underpins the notion that stealing is wrong?

:cool:

I've seen a few photos but nothing particularly clear.

Wayfarer Tom Storm anything to share on it? — schopenhauer1

I got nothing. Do we have a photo of one of these drones? I’ve heard they are almost car sized.

While I don’t find non-physicalism to be univocal in what is upheld as an alternative to physicalism, physicalism does in all its variants entail nothingness in the sense of non-being upon mortal death, as well as before the commencement of life. — javra

Which is an idea I personally find quite lovely. To me this is meaningful. We have one life, make it work.

How, then, can physicalism be understood to allow for the possibility of a meaningful cosmos, hence a meaningful existence, and, by extension, of a meaningful life (be it in general or in particular)? — javra

Meaning is a human term which is the product any number of contexts and we area sense making creatures - we can't help ourselves.

I think this is right. The aesthetic appeal is important. I'm reminded of the sublime aesthetics of the great cathedrals and Christian rituals. — Janus

Indeed, although I don’t much like cathedrals. They are striking rather than beautiful. I think ideas can also seem ugly or beautiful. For instance, the idea of a world where there is nothing after death, where limitations are imposed by natural laws, and where there is no transformative reconciliation with the ground of being, may feel ugly to some people - much the way a painting by Francis Bacon might unsettle or alarm some.


I'm just repeating myself...

Good response, thanks.

When people take their own ideas, what seems self-evident to them, too seriously it seems that culture wars are looming. For some on both sides this is can become a moral crusade. — Janus

Indeed, binary or dualistic thinking like this is certainly responsible for many unnecessarily conflicts.

I have often thought that one of the reasons people are attracted to superphysical ideas is their aesthetic appeal. It perhaps seems more harmonious to imagine that there is a transcendent realm, something grander and more meaningful beyond the physical world. I have noticed how often advocates of the transcendent describe the physicalist position as an ugly worldview - stunted, disenchanted, devoid of mystery, limiting.

I think we may be going around in circles. I believe I have dealt with your objections sufficiently - as you no doubt feel you have with mine. :wink:

I'll conclude (for now) with a few points here.

So, why should anyone who disagrees care? Is Hitler wrong, then? Under your view, he has no reason, other than his own subjective dispositions, to change his mind. — Bob Ross

Hitler and many of his supporters probably thought they were doing good and were promoting flourishing as they saw it.

I have no problem stating that I am against Nazi values and their approach, but I don't believe there are objective moral facts about it. Nazi ideology contradicts most human conventions and behaviors, causes needless suffering, and is inherently unstable for society. What more justification do you need?

In the absence of moral facts morality shifts from being about discovering "truths" to constructing frameworks that work for individuals and communities. As I have already argued, humans mostly have concern for others and want predictability, safety, resources.

According to you, again, well-being isn’t actually good: it’s just, at best, what everyone mostly wants to be the case. So, why should anyone who disagrees care? — Bob Ross

Why should anyone care even if there are moral facts? Religious believers still commit crimes/sins even while they believe god is watching and will judge them. Makes no difference. Some people will do what they want regardless. What magic do you suppose a 'moral fact' has to compel anyone to do anything?

It sounds to me like you want to identify moral facts so you can dismiss any ethical positions you disagree with by appealing to 'truth' as the ultimate criterion. I'm curious - do you also wish to criminalize behaviors that don’t align with your truth criteria? What’s your end goal here?

In the case of the latter, there may be legitimate disagreement if they subjectively agree on some maxim(s); but there’s not true disagreements because there are no facts. I say “I like vanilla ice cream”, you say “I don’t like vanilla ice cream”—who’s wrong? Neither. — Bob Ross

This is a common rebuttal and I think this gets my position wrong. Rather more is at stake than flavor. We are not isolated nomads, indifferent to the fates of others. Just consider what it is to be a person. We are all invoked in webs of affinity and webs of sympathy and acquaintance. We are connected to others. We don’t (generally) want others to suffer. We are a social species. We support behaviors which support such human dispositions.

what difference do you think it would make to how we live our lives? — Janus

Agree. I've often said that idealism really doesn't change anything. There is nothing I do now that would change.

That said, for others there seem to be at least two reasons for change. For some folk, this idea appeals to their vanity. 1) They want to know more about this 'secret' ontology and be special in some way. 2) They believe that a judgement is coming, as you say - [quote="Janus;953617" that such a mind is an omniscient, omnipotent God who will judge us[/quote]. Then people might fall over themselves in a vain attempt to anticipate how they might be judged.

I find it interesting that some secular philosophers, like AC Grayling, have left behind the word physicalism these days and use the term naturalism. Any thoughts on this word? The problem for me is that how do we draw a distinction between a natural and a supernatural world if physicalism isn't a distinguishing factor? If idealism is true than this is part of naturalism?

Thanks for this discussion, by the way. I've found it useful. These are my beliefs as they currently stand. I'm open to tweaking.

Here’s another gigantic issue with moral anti-realism: there’s no way to resolve these disagreements. — Bob Ross

There is no agreement on how morality works right now and yet we have morality and it mostly works. Cultures argue about morality all the time and have ongoing conversations about what they beleive and how to live better. So morality already functions the way I am suggesting. Western societies tend to balance pluralism. We do not have an agreed upon way to resolve disagreements, we just have a discourse.

Western societies usually seem to set wellbeing or flourishing as a goal. What is best for people and culture. But there will never be agreement on how to get there or indeed what precisely flourishing entails. But it's close enough.

But according to you we don’t agree that it is actually better: we just subjectively like it more, whereas the masters subjectively liked their society more. — Bob Ross

No, it's more than a mere like/dislike. Just because there are no moral truths, doesn't mean there's no reasoning involved.

My current belief is that there are no moral facts but I believe morality is useful pragmatically - people (mostly) feel empathy for others and they generally want a predictable, safe society. They want to be able to raise families, pursue interests, have relationships and achieve goals. They want codes of conduct that allow for this. That's what morality is. Like traffic lights. There's nothing inherently true about road rules but they provide us with systems of safety and allow for the possibility of effective road use. And we can still debate which rules work best for certain purposes.

We don't need 'true' or objective morality to build a useful system.

To whom? To the slaves? To the masters? — Bob Ross

Depends on the society. Obviously in 1830's America, to the masters. But the conversation changed. There's a general thrust in the West for egalitarianism and greater solidarity. We all seem to agree with this except when we don't, when perhaps it involves people of colour, Muslims, or women or trans folk, we might not consider solidarity relevant and call any consideration of such people 'woke'.

We mostly all know how this works.

What you are noting is correct, insofar as it outlines how human social structures work, which are inherently power-structures, but the problem is that you gutted out the part where we are actually developing better social structures because they are ethically superior to previous ones. — Bob Ross

Only subject to certain purposes and values, right? I might share with you ideals of emancipatory humanism and by this frame we might both consider human rights imperative. Great.

But we all need to agree that this is the best way to achieve human flourishing or wellbeing or whatever you consider your foundational value to be. In choosing this, you are not being objective, nor is there agreement about what constitutes flourishing/wellbeing.

Now there might be some argument to suggest that if you decide that preventing suffering is your foundational goal then Marxism might be the best approach, or Islam. But of course we don't agree on this, hence the problem. Are there objective ways to reach a goal once you have arbitrarily chosen one? Perhaps. Is this what you are arguing for?

I obviously belong to a cultural tradition and have, like most humans, evolved as part of a social species - so for this reason nurturing, tribal identification, caring for others, collaboration, protecting the weak, is hard wired in me and most of us (unless, perhaps you grow up in a war zone). But even this is provisional and contingent.

Thanks. Not sure there's much I can do with those dot points, I'm afraid.

But if you ask me what do I do when I try to escape restraint. I have been locked up in a room before. I try to escape. Survival kicks in. What does this say about the self?

If your point is simply that my reality appears to be different to the reality of the person who locked me in, so? How is this identifying anything useful about the self?

Not sure, also not sure how this helps. Please demonstrate with an example - perhaps in dot points - how you see this working.

For instance:

So let's say someone calls me an idiot. I feel a reaction. But this is far from clear. If my boss calls me an idiot, I have a different reaction to if my daughter calls me an idiot. Situation and tone varies too. And so does what the week has been like so far. How does a reaction, which is variable and unpredictable, delineate a clear sense of self? It seems to me there are various selves, with various reactions, depending on contingent factors. I might even react in a way that has me asking - what happened? I was not my self then.

Then, you are a moral anti-realist; and no one should take your view seriously; because all you are saying is that what is right or wrong is stance-dependent. So if, e.g., I want to do something you consider wrong, or others consider wrong, then there is absolutely no fact-of-the-matter that makes me wrong: I am just as right as you are (objectively speaking). — Bob Ross

That seems a rather limited way of interpreting my point. I did not say anything goes. I said humans come to agreements about what morality is and follow this right down to crafting legislation. For the most part, I am comfortable to live in a world with a code of conduct and one that provides consequences for those how step outside it.

Morality doesn't have to involve moral facts to provide social cohesion. predictability and harm minimisation. It's pragmatic and evolving.

Collectively we arrive at right and wrong through an intersubjective agreement. In other words cultures arrive at values, from a myriad sources. And we know there will always be outliers. We know that the idea for who counts is a full citizen has varied over time, as culture and values change. In the West, slavery is no longer acceptable, but it is acceptable to exploit and underpay workers to keep the rich person's housework and maintenance done. We no longer criminalise and imprison gay people or trans people. Although some elements of society seem to want to punish them again. Our agreements are not necessarily permanent.

For me this seems to be an ongoing conversation. There are no facts we can access about values, just agreements made about what we value together and what conduct we will accept. It's imperfect but I see nothing wrong with this. We don't need 'true' or objective morality to build a useful system.

One can accept that there are objective goods AND that society is a power-related structure. The idea that some people are exalted as heroes and those very same people criminals by others just highlights that humans are creating laws; and does not negate the fact that humans should be creating laws which abide by facticity. Under your view, those laws are non-factual; because there are no moral facts. — Bob Ross

Who mentioned power-related structures? Or heroes? I agree that the laws are non-factual. But I do not see this as a limitation, as you do. I don't go looking for absolute truth or foundational guarantees in the world because I am not convinced such things exist.