> "Good" and "bad" need to be defined, they can't exist independently, like some intrinsic property of the universe. I'd argue the opposite from empirics. The

> "Good" and "bad" need to be defined, they can't exist independently, like some intrinsic property of the universe. I'd argue the opposite from empirics. The function of a moral framework is to essentialize good and bad so that it appears as an intrinsic property of the universe. All moral frameworks do this. This is going to get both a bit technical and sociological, but taking a page out of Burger and Luckmann, the idea that good and bad are essential universal properties of actions is definitionally reification. I'd add that even if good an bad aren't directly essentialized, they are grounded in properties that are. Moral facts cannot escape the Münchhausen trilemma.