Multiculturalism is dead

[The Stranger]

Because killing innocent children for fun is wrong, by the definition of "wrong". The analogy I would make is to say that there are facts about what color the sky is, because the sky is blue, by definition. There are not facts about how happy the sky is by contrast, because of what it is that the word "sky" refers to.

actually i disagree, for a few reasons. let me first start with the obvious and then work my way to the less obvious reason, which i also find hard to explain in english so i hope that you can forgive me if i make some mistakes or become incoherent.

1. it doesnt follow from the definition of the sky that it is blue. however there are facts about the color of the sky because it is a fact that the sky has a color. However in order to determine what color the sky has we have to go outside and determine the color. Therefore "the sky is blue" is a synthetic a fortiori statement. Unlike the statement that "all bachelors are unmarried" which is a analytic a priori statement because it adds no new information and we do not need experience to tell us that "all bachelors are in fact unmarried". These first type of facts are empirical facts, they are facts about the world and can be determined to be true or not only for so far they appear in the world. If there was no sky in the world, then it could not have a color, and it couldnt be blue. The second type of facts are a different type of facts, because even if the world would have no bachelors it would still be true that all bachelors are unmarried.

2. It doesnt follow from the definition of wrong that "killing innocent children for fun" is wrong. It follows from the definition of wrong that when you believe something to be wrong that you disagree with it. It follows from the definition of square that all sides are equal, and its interior angles are all right angles (90°). From this it follows that the opposite sides are also parallel. But nothing about the definition of square says that the square has to be blue. Yet it is a fact that there are squares which are blue, it is not a fact that all squares are blue. It follows from the definition of innocent that one who is innocent has done nothing evil/morally wrong, but if doesnt follow from the definition of innocent that it is wrong to kill someone who is innocent.

3. while it is a fact that there are people who believe that it is wrong to kill innocent children for fun, it doesnt follow from that that it is a fact that killing innocent children for fun is wrong.

analogy

it is a fact that people disagree about their morals, but it doesnt follow from that fact that it is also a (empirical, not to be mistaken with moral) fact that there are no (moral) facts in morals

analogy

you can not derive a moral rule from a empiral fact.

–adjective
1.
not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed. (in this case something is "wrong" if it is not in accordance with one's morals, nothing about it states what these morals must be)
2.
deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer. (and again it doesnt say anything about "killing for fun is wrong".)

however i think what we need to establish first is this, in the case that there would be moral facts, what kind of facts would they be? most people would say that they are metaphysical facts, but perhaps you are a moral realist and you would say that they are empirical facts and they can be determined by experiment.

if you believe morals to be metaphysical you cant use the scientific method in order to determine whether one moral statement is wrong and the other is not. if you believe morals to be empirical than you can, but that gives rise to a whole different set of problems such as, how to we recognise moral facts etc etc