Moral facts are not self-evident. We became aware of disagreement, but about the games we use to describe right and wrong. It's what comes after the "because".
Saying "X is wrong" and "Y knows X is wrong" mean two very different things depending on your analysis. "Notions of morality" is about the first statement and about the second. Does Y know X is wrong in virtue of the moral fact that X is wrong? If grass is green, there's something I'm learning when I read "Grass is green" — or is it upon seeing grass that I know grass is green?
The point here is the features of facts: one does not see the wrongness of an act in the way that one sees grass is green, irrespective to the question of language. Now, of course, morality is primarily codified into symbols — do facts exist here, behind the veil of language? Perhaps. But the main question here is the structure of a fact: Is it a picture? If I know the constant of gravity, I know something about the shape of galaxies through relativity. I can see regularity across the heavens. I can test it and measure its components, but only in virtue of axiomitization, which is linguistic. Well, how does one test morality? Does one collect report on opinion, or does one look into the world to discover their structure? Certainly reports on moral opinion will be picture-like, but do they disclose the structure we would find if morality could be discovered in the world without reports on it? Is direct evidence possible without the existence of indirect evidence?
Saying "X is wrong" and "Y knows X is wrong" mean two very different things depending on your analysis. "Notions of morality" is about the first statement and about the second. Does Y know X is wrong in virtue of the moral fact that X is wrong? If grass is green, there's something I'm learning when I read "Grass is green" — or is it upon seeing grass that I know grass is green?
The point here is the features of facts: one does not see the wrongness of an act in the way that one sees grass is green, irrespective to the question of language. Now, of course, morality is primarily codified into symbols — do facts exist here, behind the veil of language? Perhaps. But the main question here is the structure of a fact: Is it a picture? If I know the constant of gravity, I know something about the shape of galaxies through relativity. I can see regularity across the heavens. I can test it and measure its components, but only in virtue of axiomitization, which is linguistic. Well, how does one test morality? Does one collect report on opinion, or does one look into the world to discover their structure? Certainly reports on moral opinion will be picture-like, but do they disclose the structure we would find if morality could be discovered in the world without reports on it? Is direct evidence possible without the existence of indirect evidence?