I actually side with the lobsters in this example (e.g., I believe it is wrong to boil a lobster alive for the mere sensory enjoyment of eating the lobster). Bu

I actually side with the lobsters in this example (e.g., I believe it is wrong to boil a lobster alive for the mere sensory enjoyment of eating the lobster). But yes, many other humans don't. But that doesn't mean there aren't moral facts. It could instead mean that either the humans or the lobsters are wrong, and there is a good argument that one of them hasn't considered as to why they are wrong. If you disagree, then you must not believe that there are scientific facts either? After all, two separate people can disagree over which scientific theory is true/best fits the evidence (which is a process that boils down to asking which theories best comport with our raw sensory appearances, BTW). But if mere disagreement implies that there can't be truths in a domain, then this would mean there are no scientific facts, which is of course absurd. It's a much more plausible position to think that there are controversial scientific theories which we are less certain of, that one (or both) parties to scientific disagreements are just mistaken, but that there are after all scientific facts. Similarly, it is much more plausible position to think that there are controversial moral theories which we are less certain of, that one (or both) parties to moral disagreements are just mistaken, but that there are after all moral facts.