The author declines to demonstrate to the reader that there are moral facts. He attempted reductiones ad absurdum fall completely flat, e.g., > If it’s not tr

The author declines to demonstrate to the reader that there are moral facts. He attempted reductiones ad absurdum fall completely flat, e.g., > If it’s not true that it’s wrong to murder a cartoonist with whom one disagrees, then how can we be outraged? ...As if nobody has ever been outraged on the basis of their opinions! He also fails to even mention what a moral fact would consist of. He doesn't say whether he agrees with this definition: > Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven. But clearly if one takes this position, there are no moral facts. What would constitute moral proof? My guess is that the author is crypto-monotheist. With a God around, you could say that a moral claim is God's will, and even if we can't prove it there is a fact of the matter. In a godless world, there is no basis on which a moral claim could be a fact.