Originally Posted by Ele

Consideration of a fact still happens when dealing with concretes though. The difference is that we can easily come across a definitive, objective answer for concrete things because science works on the natural world. So consideration of the fact isn't relevant here, what's relevant is that we can't use the scientific method in full in the realm of conceptualisations, since conceptualisations don't exist in the natural world.

I still stand by my point that we can investigate the conceptual world and make judgements using what tools we can, logic and reason. It may not be 'objectivity' in the most technical sense, but I don't think that's really important, since it lets us say definitive things like 'torturing and raping a child is immoral' and 'fat people with fucked teeth and open bleeding sores all over their body aren't beautiful'. Things that any sane and reasonable person would agree with. Is it technically objective, nah. Does it matter at all that it's not, nah. I'd argue the distinction is mostly unimportant for any context that isn't within a university philosophy class.