Well, I think it is, but I'm trying my best to stay out of this thread. EDIT: I'm not playing I'm not playing I'm not playing I think I'll drink insteadIt is not dispiriting to see people taking a the view that "there are no moral facts".
It seems like the original author is ill-equipped to teach philosophy if he isn't familiar with the a posteriori state of morals. He wants moral facts -- a priori moral guidelines that would exist regardless of the nation or classroom. There aren't any. Instead we have moral assertions that are inherent in the social contract. While these have to exist for any civilization to exist, they are still only inherent to that state. Having a paved town and not murdering each other are super important for us to make progress. Nevertheless, that's not inherent in being alive -- it's inherent in not fleeing to the woods and never having a day job with other humans. Don't steal, don't cheat, don't poison the well. It all makes sense when we each want to have stuff, each want to know the abilities of each other, each want to drink from the same well. It's obvious but not mandatory -- and the punishment for flouting such rules is some from of exclusion from society. This is basic Rousseau, straight outta Hobbes as well -- Ethics 101. Nature is nasty, brutish, and full of disease-riddled insects. You want out? You agree to some stuff. That doesn't make those rules into facts -- just deep-down, well-tested opinions. The laws that come from these rules are facts, but they are also instantiations of opinions. It's much like turning pseudocode into code. It's like how gravity is still a theory. We will never get to shake gravity's hand, but we'll also never get to escape it. Even in outer space, it will pull us around.
A guess: The author wants to go from "associate professor" to "full professor" and that involves publication and profile. A few articles under your belt also help with non-fiction book proposals. The NYT saw it as print-worthy; controversy certainly helps circulation. I've also found that people who know their shit about philosophy aren't always the greatest about communicating philosophy to people who don't. Finally, we have no idea how long the article was before it was cut down for publication. The NYT may well have edited out any number of cogent points we're all arguing the lack of. That is a spectacular turn of phrase.We will never get to shake gravity's hand, but we'll also never get to escape it.
I think the phrasings of "moral facts" is very hard to pin down when you are just saying "do you think there are moral facts". Almost everyone in the world will agree that there are good things and bad things, but more importantly, everyone will agree that that depends on the person, the culture, and the situation. Consider the core parts of human societies. We all work together, we all operate on similar rules, and we all have our base desires and needs. These base things come together to create a framework that is nearly always there, that can be called "moral fact" in that it is a core part of all human society, and is what is best for everyone if you act that way. However, that doesn't mean they are objective facts. Consider for the average person in the US. A moral fact is that you should stand up against your government, your peers, and everything/everyone else. Compete, argue, fight, stand up for yourself, speak your mind. Those are moral goods. Consider the average person in China. The opposite is true. Simplifying to a large degree there, but that's an example of culture chaning things. In the US, it is far better to not listen to superiors if you think you are right. We praise and value it. In China, the same doesn't apply (or so I've heard). Consider the eating of cows. Most in the US consider that moral and fine. In India, however, it is a moral wrong. Some things. Murder, rape, stealing, and so on, have and will be universally immoral through all modern societies. (Stealing the last strong of those, as there may be cultures that have no concept of possession). Does that mean they are objectively wrong? No. They aren't objectively wrong. However, you aren't going to find an instant, in any place, that any human being interested in being part of a strong, healthy, and decent society, will tell you that such things are good. It's in our interests, in societies interest, to keep those things from happening. Hence. Moral "truth" is born.