Moral fact

Are you referring to the factual question (why do we think something is good; observing an idea or just a feeling within us) or the normative question (would morality have binding validity if it were not for realism)?

Your Honor, to the extent that this has indeed been observed, but how do we correctly decipher the observation of the idea? That is, if we simply assume that that feeling of morality is classified as good, bad, and neutral, how do we know that the classification mechanism is completely correct? Optimism will prove that it is refuted from time to time by reality. And optimism is also the observation of a certain idea. The idea of ‘what the future holds’; negative or positive. If the feeling in the matter is what causes us to assume the existence of the idea of morality, then a feeling of optimism will cause us to assume the existence of the idea of optimism. And what I mean is that to the extent that the subjective feeling is indeed valid for that subject and proves the existence of the idea, there is a fundamental difference. The other senses come in handy. At most, they are wrong. But here the requirement is too great and in any case the need for reliability increases accordingly.
Thank you and have a good day!

These questions come up again and again. We have several types of feelings, and not all of them are feelings of recognition. When I am sad, I don't have the feeling that it reflects something in the world. It is a feeling inside me. Recognition is neither a feeling nor an emotion. Moral recognition is recognition and not a feeling.
We have no independent way of knowing that it is reliable and that there are things in the body. We also have no such way regarding the principle of causality and regarding trust in our vision. Will we give up trust in our eyes because of Peta Morgana?
Beyond that, you write that these are important questions and therefore we must be careful not to make mistakes. But we have no other tool for moral recognition, so what is the alternative?

“But we have no other tool for moral cognition, so what is the alternative?”
So maybe we should give up on moral cognition?

This also applies to your answer at the beginning of the thread. If we are unable to define what a moral fact is, then who said it actually exists? How can we trust intuition when it is not at all clear what it produces?

And another question, if we manage to understand how moral intuition was created during evolution, it is clear that this will cause us to stop believing in morality as something real. So isn't it incumbent on us to clarify the question of whether morality was not created during evolution?

Maybe yes, maybe no. Decide what you think. If you think that definition is a condition for the existence of a thing, you live in la-la land (define la-la land).
Regarding the clarification of how and if morality was created throughout evolution – good luck.

I didn't understand the answer, neither about La La Land nor about evolution. Can you explain?

I explained what I had to explain. You are making the existence of a thing dependent on its definition. This is complete nonsense. You cannot define any basic concept. And as for evolution, I just wished you success. If there is a project that you think is important, then go ahead and succeed. That's all.

Why doesn't it seem important to you?
Do you disagree with the assumption that if morality is created by evolution, it doesn't obligate us?
And don't you agree that it's important to know whether morality obligates us?

I didn't say it's not important, but I think it's not amenable to scientific-empirical examination. Therefore, the move should be the other way around: If morality is valid, then it probably wasn't created by evolution. Rather, perhaps evolution created tools for moral cognition, but from the moment they were created we generally notice that morality is valid. Just as after evolution created tools of vision, we see reality, and that doesn't mean that there is no real reality.

Why do you think this cannot be empirically tested?

It seems to me that whoever claims this has been given the evidence. Suggest an experiment or study that will test this.