![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/flexbooth/23u67PhegTpZWuJBfrmBVGqwVRqZbB84W2xeohAv6q7qamTF1BoX6w88tQecR8L1CxnM3.png)



I know that it's always going to be a point of contention for me to maintain the idea that moral statements can be objectively wrong or right.

That said, if you're a person who embraces the self-refuting idea that values can't be right or wrong, I'm willing to bet that you still believe that, even if moral values can't be true or false, there are things that can be observably or tangibly true or false.

I also think that it would be hard to say that there's literally no overlap between positive observations about the world and value judgments. If there weren't any connections, we wouldn't bring up data in support or opposition to any policy changes. We wouldn't look at video evidence in any criminal cases because the observable, positive facts of the case wouldn't be relevant to your subjective value judgments.

So, if your value judgments rely upon you getting observable, objective facts wrong, isn't that an indicator that your values are *at least* likely to not be right?

Just as an example, if you still believe that Kyle Rittenhouse should be in prison for the rest of his life and your reasoning is built upon details that we know to be objectively false - that he crossed state lines with the gun, his mom drove him, he's a racist, that Rittenhouse chased down Rosenbaum and shot him in cold blood, etc. isn't it reasonable to think that your value judgement that he *should* be in prison is objectively wrong because your reasons for believing that are demonstrably wrong?