Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:32 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:05 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:56 pm
The premises or axioms or goals of a moral system can only ever be matters of choice.
Any fact proposed as a premise - such as a fact of human nature - can't entail or induce a moral conclusion, without begging the question.
For these reasons, morality can't be objective. There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions - how ever rational and widely-held they may be.
WHO ARE YOU to conclude the above?
You are begging the question with confirmation bias because you assumed and is stuck dogmatically with the bastardized ideas from the LPs and CAPs that 'there are no moral truths' period!
The general principle without bias is,
whatever the claim of reality [moral or otherwise] it must be verifiable/verified and justifiable/justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
Verifiable and justifiable only where empirically possible.
I have already verified and justified an empirical moral reality i.e. 'no humans ought-not to kill humans' within a credible FSK. Thus moral realism is real and objective upon the above.
No, you haven't demonstrated that a moral reality exists. You've claimed that humans are programmed not to kill humans, which, even if that's true, doesn't entail the moral assertion 'humans ought not to kill humans'.
And the truth-value of conclusions has nothing to do with who asserts them. For example, even you could make a true assertion.
To you it doesn't entail a moral assertion because you are ignorant of what is morality-proper and the principles of how framework and system of knowledge or reality work and the latter is obviously inexcusable for anyone average in philosophy.
Note how the verified scientific truths are incorporated within legal FSK to enable legal truths to emerge.
Forensic science is simply defined as the application of science to the law or legal matters [1]. In today’s CSI and Forensic Files world, this area of science is much more widely known to the general public.
...
When the actual real-life judicial system needs science to resolve a question, the person who is called upon to bring science into the courtroom is often a forensic scientist. The law and science are strange bedfellows.
Science is an empirical method of learning, anchored to the principles of observation and discovery as to how the natural world works.
...
The law, on the other hand, starts out with at least two competing parties with markedly different views who use the courthouse as a battleground to argue factual issues within the context of constitutional, statutory, and decisional law.
....
Forensics involves the application of knowledge and technology from different scientific disciplines in jurisprudence. These are, for example,
biology,
pharmacy,
chemistry,
medicine, etc. [many more], and each of them applies in the present, increasingly complex legal proceedings in which the required knowledge and skills of experts from these areas to prove offenses.
https://www.peertechzpublications.com/a ... -4-111.php
At times, the scientific truth alone is the critical evidence with significant weightage, say >90% [e.g. DNA evidence] that enable the conviction of a criminal, where the conviction itself is then
a legal truth qualitied to the specific legal FSK.
Like the legal truth above, when the scientific truth, "humans are programmed not to kill humans" it true scientifically, this truth when input into the moral FSK carries critical and significant weightage in enabling it as a moral truth and reality within the moral FSK.
You are of course entitled to be stuck to your dogmatic stance with
your opinions as brainwashed by the LPs and CAPs. Don't expect you to come out of your thick windowless silo at all.