[ido66667]

This is simply the is-ought problem. You cannot prove a moral statement from observation or measurement of nature. This does mean that indeed Facebook and Tor would be on equivalent grounds. The judgment between them is up to you.

[bobthechef]

All judgement is "up to me". And how does your claim about observation and measurement fair when subjected to its own criteria?

Also, the "is-ought" problem follows from a particular (very problematic) metaphysics. It does not follow from an Aristotelian understanding of metaphysics.

[dragonwriter]

> Also, the "is-ought" problem follows from a particular (very problematic) metaphysics.

No, it flows from propositional logic, which is not a metaphysics. You can't have an “ought” conclusion with only “is” premises.

A metaphysics may assume “ought” axioms and thus support “ought” conclusions from only “is” additional bases, but then you still aren't getting an “ought” from an “is”, you are getting it from the “ought” you assumed with your metaphysics.

[marginalia_nu]

> the "is-ought" problem follows from a particular (very problematic) metaphysics

Why is it problematic?

> It does not follow from an Aristotelian understanding of metaphysics.

Aristotle's metaphysics does also carry some baggage. It is contingent on an unmoved mover/active intellect that creates not only motion but purpose in the universe.

Although his ethics can broadly be taken at face value as long as you agree with the proposition that your purpose is to flourish as a human. It does seem to work pretty well, although the question he was truly answering was how to be a happy individual, whereas the meaning of ethics has shifted over the millennia to deal more with civic virtues than personal ones.