[Zoot]

No, it is a fact about themselves, and if the prediction turns out to be inaccurate, they can then said to have been mistaken.

Using the distinction I mentioned in the above post, I'll word this carefully:

They can be mistaken about the prediction that something will provide a result they value. They can't be mistaken about what is valuable.

This is the error with suggesting I am relying on objective morality. Subjective morality is more than sufficient in this context.

I think my concern is you bleeding the correct/incorrect thing over from preferability to value (based on that distinction above).

When you say "I experience pleasure as preferable" I see a stark implication of "and I believe it will continue to be so."

It's only really a statement of right now. But I would now reword that as "I value pleasure" and "I experience as preferable those things that I predict will bring me pleasure".

I cannot see how you can absolutely divorce belief from evaluation of preferability. You are relying upon your past experiences and a prediction that said experiences will return a similar value in the future. That is something you cannot know implicitly, it is something you must believe.

I've said plenty of times, including my spider example and the cake example, that one can be mistaken about what will bring one something valued. My point is that one cannot be mistaken about values. It can be true or false that something will bring a result that is valued. It can be true or false that someone values something. It cannot be true or false that a value is valuable.

I'm hoping that the new distinction between preferability (of options) and values will help end the confusion.