FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 1:37 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:28 am
I repeat what I have posted elsewhere regard your accusation of circularity.
Prosecutors and a jury do not 'look' inside the legal FSK to convict a murderer.
Scientists don't 'look' into the scientific FSK for scientific facts.
Moral agents do not 'look' inside a moral FSK for moral facts.
I don't understand the strategic decision making that leads you to invoke the legal system here at all to be honest. If a legal question is asked such as "is it against the law to eat a cheeseburger in a built up area?" the answer is a matter of what you would call an FSK all the way. But if somebody says "I obey only my own laws and will eat my cheeseburger wherever I want" that wouldn't be scientifically innacurate, it would just be an opinion that the police happen not to share.
Likewise, the question will be asked soon whether that cop who knelt on that Floyd's neck is a murderer. The question won't be about whether he knelt on the neck, that much is on video. The question will be whether that conforms to the description of murder as given in various statues applicable to that locality. But had that happened in Britain the cop would be in prison already doing plenty of time. While in Russia it would just be business as usual, and nobody would even investigate it as a crime.
Note my principle,
whatever is fact is specific to a FSK.
If the cop who knelt on Floyd's neck is
convicted in a court of law as a murderer within the related State Laws,
then that is a legal fact which must be qualified to the Legal FSK of that State only [Minnesota].
It cannot be a standalone fact or legal fact but be qualified to the Legal FSK of that State only [Minnesota].
It is obvious this is a state-of-affairs, a feature of reality, and a
qualified-matter-of-legal-fact.
If the above similar event happened in Russia and if no cop is convicted as a murderer in any court of law, then there is no "legal fact" at all.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:28 am
A FSK is a Framework and System of Knowledge or reality[FSR].
Do you understand how Framework & System work?
One has to comply with all the requirements of the FSK to enable the targeted fact to be justified.
You are creating your own statements.
I do not prefer and did not use the terms 'right' and 'wrong'.
As long as you maintain such a stance you will be showing everyone that "morality-proper" is fundamentally unrelated to morality at all.
Problem with the majority's view on morality is too superficial and >80% are theistically inclined and leveraged on the commands an illusory God.
My morality-proper is leveraged on empirical evidences within the brains of all humans which can at least be confirmed by individuals of the majority..
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:28 am
I have given you an analogy of the legal FSK with its legal facts relying upon scientific facts as analogously to the moral FSK, [note, its a moral Framework and System.]
Are you accusing a legal fact, such as "X is convicted of murder Y" as circular?
Show me the circularity is a syllogism.
A fact such as that a court has met in session to consider a charge of murder levied aganst Y in relation to the death of X, and that a jury has duly found the defendant guilty is just a matter of record.
But if somebody were to argue that the reason why murder is wrong is because it is against the law, and that the law must be right because otherwise murder wouldn't be wrong, then yes, that would be circular. And that is roughly the situation you are in.
But luckily the law operates as a sort of barometer of public moral beliefs, which change over time quite a lot. That changeable character of our moral discourse is something you cannot account for once you start to impose this notion of moral facts. So then you have a whole teleological issue. However, given how little progress you have made in all these conversations over the last couple of years, I wouldn't worry about that question for now, you have about a decade before you will be ready for that one.
You are way off in conflating morality with laws [politics].
What the laws imposed is based on intuitions [or reasonings] of what is in alignment within human nature but provide no justification of facts, i.e. moral facts.
They are based on the majority of the legislature or the dicta of a dictator.
Like Henry's intuitive insight the law can get it
in alignment [luck] with what is naturally moral and can be
off alignment with what is naturally moral.
Note within the legal FSK what is a crime is already decided and enacted by the legislature based on a majority or dicta of a dictator.
It is then up to the prosecutor to argue
with evidences [of scientific facts and others] that a crime has been committed in alignment with the law, the defense to defend and the jury [or judge] to decide on the case in accordance to what is enacted as law.
The final decision is a legal-fact qualified to all the related conditions and FSK.
There is no circularity in the above with the emergence from the legal FSK of the legal fact, e.g. X is convicted of murdering Y [within a court of law in S].
What is a legal-fact is this case must be qualified with all the related conditions.
Note in law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty not the other way round.