For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
You are a dead brained moronic idiot with nothing to offer, anyone, let alone a philosophy Forum. I suggest you simply fuck off.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 4:19 pmThat says way more about your state of mind than mine...Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 4:17 pm When ever I read your posts. This is who I think of.
https://lgbtqnation-assets.imgix.net/20 ... crop=faces
Au contraire. Philosophising about philosophy is precisely my domain of expertise. As would be any objective conception of "objectivity". Or a moral conception of "morality".
You are back on ignore.
Your syllogism has missing premises, thus should be,Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 11:56 amPremise: we are 'programmed' with 'ought not to kill other humans'.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:44 amYour approach is too shallow.Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 2:08 pm When you make a value judgement things are far more difficult. Murder is bad, because it is unlawful. Why is braking the law bad? You can only respond with another judgement. Why is killing a human different from killing a dog. Once again you have to make a judgement. It is not an objective truth to say that all humans must be good, or do good. There is simply no objective basis for that that does not rely on the judgement of a subject; a person to whom the rules might be imposed, or a person who might be imposed upon.
All humans are "programmed" with,
'ought not to kill humans'
this is evident why the majority of people are not running around killing humans.
This inhibition of not killing humans is represented by neuron and neural connectivities, thus represent a state-of-affairs or state-of-being human.
It is only when the inherent program 'ought not to kill humans' is weakened or damaged [as in psychopaths] that certain humans will kill other humans.
In other cases where humans permit and accept the killing of humans as in wars, legal, and the likes, there is some degree of deviation from the inherent inhibitors of 'ought-not-to-kill'.
Morality is independent of the laws which is politics.
Morality is related to the self-development of one's inherent moral potential.
If you applaud the killing of another human or you yourself want to kill another human, it indicate your moral competence is immature and moral compass is not working properly.If someone were to kill Trump, I would applaud. It might be considered murder, but it would be for the greater good. There is no morally objective case that can encompass that.
As for killing dogs, I value my dog over your life. Law would not see it that way; but then as always the law is an ass.
It is only those with primal and barbaric tendencies who would want to kill another for not meeting their expectations.
For those who are evolving to be more human, they develop their moral competence and solve the roots of the problems via the prevention route rather instead of curing by killing the ones who do not meet their expectations.
Conclusion: therefore, killing other humans is morally wrong.
Even if the premise is true, the conclusion doesn't follow. And pari passu, if we were 'programmed' with 'ought to kill other humans', it wouldn't follow that killing other humans is morally right.
How ever often you repeat this fallacy, it remains a fallacy. A factual assertion can't entail a moral assertion.
Wow.. great link re Richard Feyman.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 1:21 pm When you as a WHY? question you are always in some implicit framework in which you have allowed something to be true a priori.
otherwise you are always asking WHY.
Don't take it from me though. Take it from the dude with the Nobel Prize.
You are the ignorant one who should be ignored.Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 4:57 pmYou are back on ignore.
Then you are free to do that.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 7:36 amYou are the ignorant one who should be ignored.
You claim there is a moral framework and system of knowledge (FSK), which has credibility because of its 'processes and reliability of verifications, testing, repeatability, falsifiability of its truths' [sic].Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 7:36 amYou are the ignorant one who should be ignored.
By the above definition what is objectivity can also be
- In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
a concept of truth that is dependent on the views based on the consensus to two or more individuals based on a framework and system of knowledge as mentioned by Richard Feyman in Skepdick's link below;
https://youtu.be/MO0r930Sn_8?t=96
However what is objective within objectivity [as defined] need not be true.
To be true and real there is a need to verify and justify the claim empirically and philosophically within the respective framework and system of knowledge.
I don't believe anyone here will dispute, the scientific framework and system [FSK] provide scientific truths and facts of the highest veracity.
Thus the claims of truths and facts from other FSKs should be compared relative to the scientific FSK in terms of its features, qualities and credibility, i.e. in terms of its processes and reliability of verifications, testing, repeatability, falsifiability of its truths.
We can test it based on induction via the social science basis.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:15 pmYou claim there is a moral framework and system of knowledge (FSK), which has credibility because of its 'processes and reliability of verifications, testing, repeatability, falsifiability of its truths' [sic].Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 7:36 amYou are the ignorant one who should be ignored.
By the above definition what is objectivity can also be
- In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
a concept of truth that is dependent on the views based on the consensus to two or more individuals based on a framework and system of knowledge as mentioned by Richard Feyman in Skepdick's link below;
https://youtu.be/MO0r930Sn_8?t=96
However what is objective within objectivity [as defined] need not be true.
To be true and real there is a need to verify and justify the claim empirically and philosophically within the respective framework and system of knowledge.
I don't believe anyone here will dispute, the scientific framework and system [FSK] provide scientific truths and facts of the highest veracity.
Thus the claims of truths and facts from other FSKs should be compared relative to the scientific FSK in terms of its features, qualities and credibility, i.e. in terms of its processes and reliability of verifications, testing, repeatability, falsifiability of its truths.
Okay, how do we empirically test and falsify the assertion that killing people is morally wrong, without appealing to another moral assertion?
It can't be done, which is why is why there is no moral FSK. The moral FSK is your question-begging invention.
Not one of the above - or the assertions they imply - entails the conclusion: therefore killing humans is morally wrong. In each case, that conclusion has to be assumed as a premise, which begs the question. (You do understand what begging the question means?)Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 7:34 amWe can test it based on induction via the social science basis.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:15 pmYou claim there is a moral framework and system of knowledge (FSK), which has credibility because of its 'processes and reliability of verifications, testing, repeatability, falsifiability of its truths' [sic].Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 7:36 am
You are the ignorant one who should be ignored.
By the above definition what is objectivity can also be
- In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
a concept of truth that is dependent on the views based on the consensus to two or more individuals based on a framework and system of knowledge as mentioned by Richard Feyman in Skepdick's link below;
https://youtu.be/MO0r930Sn_8?t=96
However what is objective within objectivity [as defined] need not be true.
To be true and real there is a need to verify and justify the claim empirically and philosophically within the respective framework and system of knowledge.
I don't believe anyone here will dispute, the scientific framework and system [FSK] provide scientific truths and facts of the highest veracity.
Thus the claims of truths and facts from other FSKs should be compared relative to the scientific FSK in terms of its features, qualities and credibility, i.e. in terms of its processes and reliability of verifications, testing, repeatability, falsifiability of its truths.
Okay, how do we empirically test and falsify the assertion that killing people is morally wrong, without appealing to another moral assertion?
It can't be done, which is why is why there is no moral FSK. The moral FSK is your question-begging invention.
Note there are many approaches to verify, test, falsify and justify the moral fact - 'humans killing of humans' is morally wrong within a moral FSR or the interchangeable FSK.
Here is one intuitive approach;
- 1. Would you volunteer to be killed by other humans? -answer is No if you are a normal person.
2. Would you volunteer to kill yourself? -answer is No if you are a normal person.
3. Do you have the urge to kill humans? -answer is No if you are a normal person.
4. Throughout the history of mankind, the killing of humans by humans has always been regarded as evil, an abhorrence at the likes.
5. There are all sort of prohibition, laws, etc. to condemn and prevent the killing of humans by humans. All nations has laws that prescribed murder is a serious crime.
6. Those humans who kill humans are diagnosed as mentally ill.
7. Do you know of any humans who are closely associated with you who would want to kill other humans.
8. There are laws that accept and permit the killing of humans are warranted but at the same time there are protest and call for such laws to be revoked.
9. Would you agree the majority of all 'normal' humans on Earth would regard humans killing of human as wrong in general.
10. Etc. etc.
So, we define morality as being to do with judgements as to whether behaviour is proper or improper. Then we construct a moral framework and system according to that definition: this behaviour is proper and this behaviour is improper, etc. Et, voila - we have a moral system based on conformity to a subjectively-constructed set of standards of propriety and impropriety. And the only fact involved is that we have adopted such-and-such moral rules, with which behaviour does or doesn't conform. And that doesn't mean there are moral facts, so that morality is objective.
Note the above are to be considered with a moral framework and system.
It is dumb to deny the existence of a moral framework and system.
Anyone and group can construct a moral framework and system in accordance to a proper definition of what is morality. It is only that its credibility need to be verified and proven.
Try answering your own question. Could it be that the fact that what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call oxygen and hydrogen - so that, in chemistry, the factual assertion 'water is H2O' is true, simply because it correctly asserts a state of affairs that exists whether or not we decribe it in that way? - And that a moral assertion, such as 'killing people is morally wrong' doesn't have the same function? Could that be why constructing a moral system and framework is nothing like constructing a chemistry system and framework?If there is a scientific framework & system and their subs, legal framework, medical framework and whatever framework, why not a moral framework which is well-defined and practical and comparative to the Scientific FSK.
The fact that, after all our discussions, you still don't understand why your 9 assertions don't and can't entail a moral conclusion - well, it beggars belief. For example:
If you agree with points 1-9 and 10, intuitively one would be very confident, the 'humans killing of humans' is morally wrong within a moral framework and system.
One way to gain the highest confidence level is to do a continual survey of the all or the majority of humans on earth to get their confirmation whether 'humans killing humans' is wrong within a moral FSK.
Nope. The objectivity of the discourses and practices you list doesn't come from the discourses and practices themselves. It comes from the reality - and therefore the facts - decribed within those discourses and practices. Morality doesn't an can't have that objectivity.
I believe the above is a sufficient lead to an objective conclusion via induction of a social science basis that 'humans killing humans' is morally wrong within a moral FSK.
Note I stated the above is merely one of the many approaches [from anthropology, evolutionary psychology, biology, neurosciences, neuro-psychology, etc.] to confirm why 'humans killing humans' is morally wrong within a moral FSK.
Note I mentioned the above is merely intuitive and is sufficient to give one a hint of the existence of the moral fact, humans killing of humans is morally wrong.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:12 am Not one of the above - or the assertions they imply - entails the conclusion: therefore killing humans is morally wrong. In each case, that conclusion has to be assumed as a premise, which begs the question. (You do understand what begging the question means?)
Note I wrote this in the other posts which you totally ignore, as usual, and argue based on that ignorance;So, we define morality as being to do with judgements as to whether behaviour is proper or improper.Note the above are to be considered with a moral framework and system.
It is dumb to deny the existence of a moral framework and system.
Anyone and group can construct a moral framework and system in accordance to a proper definition of what is morality. It is only that its credibility need to be verified and proven.
Then we construct a moral framework and system according to that definition: this behaviour is proper and this behaviour is improper, etc. Et, voila - we have a moral system based on conformity to a subjectively-constructed set of standards of propriety and impropriety.
And the only fact involved is that we have adopted such-and-such moral rules, with which behaviour does or doesn't conform.
And that doesn't mean there are moral facts, so that morality is objective.
Process 1 thus establish the objectivity of the moral fact from empirical evidences via the methodology of social science supported by various other proofs.1. First, from empirical evidences we verify and justify there are moral facts within a moral framework and system. 'Slavery is evil is a moral fact'
2. The moral fact is thus a standard or norms, slavery is morally wrong i.e. 'no human ought to enslave another'
3. Thus if there are trend of lesser slaves, there is a increase in moral competence or vice-versa.
viewtopic.php?p=484042#p484042
Nope!Try answering your own question.If there is a scientific framework & system and their subs, legal framework, medical framework and whatever framework, why not a moral framework which is well-defined and practical and comparative to the Scientific FSK.
Could it be that the fact that what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call oxygen and hydrogen - so that, in chemistry, the factual assertion 'water is H2O' is true, simply because it correctly asserts a state of affairs that exists whether or not we describe it in that way?
- And that a moral assertion, such as 'killing people is morally wrong' doesn't have the same function?
Could that be why constructing a moral system and framework is nothing like constructing a chemistry system and framework?
I have asked you to show which of my 9 points are irrational and nonsensical.The fact that, after all our discussions, you still don't understand why your 9 assertions don't and can't entail a moral conclusion - well, it beggars belief. For example:
Everyone on earth confirms that humans killing humans is morally wrong; therefore humans killing humans is morally wrong.
The premise is obviously false, but even if it were true, the moral conclusion doesn't and can't follow - unless it's assumed that what everyone on earth confirms is morally wrong is indeed morally wrong - and that begs the question. And your supposed get-out - 'within the moral FSK' - does not repair the question-begging problem. It merely pushes it back to a previous subjectively-made judgement about moral wrongness.
There you go again.Nope. The objectivity of the discourses and practices you list doesn't come from the discourses and practices themselves. It comes from the reality - and therefore the facts - described within those discourses and practices. Morality doesn't an can't have that objectivity.
Nonsense. Here's your argument:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 11:06 amNote I mentioned the above is merely intuitive and is sufficient to give one a hint of the existence of the moral fact, humans killing of humans is morally wrong.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:12 am Not one of the above - or the assertions they imply - entails the conclusion: therefore killing humans is morally wrong. In each case, that conclusion has to be assumed as a premise, which begs the question. (You do understand what begging the question means?)
What question is there to beg, the above is not a proper argument with a definite conclusion.
When I hear an appeal to intuition, I reach for my metaphorical revolver - because it's always the last resort of the intellectually defeated - just like the appeal to faith. What we need is evidence and sound argument, not intuition.
However do you dispute the points I raised for an intuitive assessment?
Wake up. Your factual assertions may be true. But even if they are, they don't entail the moral conclusion.Is any of the points irrational or nonsensical? if so, which one.
I believe the above points are already empirically evident and others are very empirically possible to be true.
As I've shown, the truth-value of a factual assertion made to justify a moral conclusion IS NOT THE ISSUE. Even if it's true, it doesn't and can't entail the moral conclusion. How many times?
Note;
9. Would you agree the majority of all 'normal' humans on Earth would regard humans killing of human as wrong in general.
What is the possibility of the above being TOTALLY or highly false?
in contrast to say if I state 'unicorns exist.'
NO, IT IS NOT THE SAME. And why? I know, just for fun, why don't you work out what you think my answer is to that question? It would be interesting to see if you can explain my argument, even though you disagree with it. It might help you to sharpen up your argument.Note I wrote this in the other posts which you totally ignore, as usual, and argue based on that ignorance;So, we define morality as being to do with judgements as to whether behaviour is proper or improper.Note the above are to be considered with a moral framework and system.
It is dumb to deny the existence of a moral framework and system.
Anyone and group can construct a moral framework and system in accordance to a proper definition of what is morality. It is only that its credibility need to be verified and proven.
Then we construct a moral framework and system according to that definition: this behaviour is proper and this behaviour is improper, etc. Et, voila - we have a moral system based on conformity to a subjectively-constructed set of standards of propriety and impropriety.
And the only fact involved is that we have adopted such-and-such moral rules, with which behaviour does or doesn't conform.
And that doesn't mean there are moral facts, so that morality is objective.
Process 1 thus establish the objectivity of the moral fact from empirical evidences via the methodology of social science supported by various other proofs.1. First, from empirical evidences we verify and justify there are moral facts within a moral framework and system. 'Slavery is evil is a moral fact'
2. The moral fact is thus a standard or norms, slavery is morally wrong i.e. 'no human ought to enslave another'
3. Thus if there are trend of lesser slaves, there is a increase in moral competence or vice-versa.
viewtopic.php?p=484042#p484042
Nope!Try answering your own question.If there is a scientific framework & system and their subs, legal framework, medical framework and whatever framework, why not a moral framework which is well-defined and practical and comparative to the Scientific FSK.
Could it be that the fact that what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call oxygen and hydrogen - so that, in chemistry, the factual assertion 'water is H2O' is true, simply because it correctly asserts a state of affairs that exists whether or not we describe it in that way?
- And that a moral assertion, such as 'killing people is morally wrong' doesn't have the same function?
Could that be why constructing a moral system and framework is nothing like constructing a chemistry system and framework?
Yes 'water is H2O' is true in relation [conditioned] to a supposed state of affairs, but that is only conditioned upon the Chemistry FSK which is independent of personal opinions and beliefs.
But 'water is H20' is not ABSOLUTELY true independent of a Chemistry FSK.
Constructing a moral framework and system is the same as constructing a scientific framework & system and any other FSKs. The difference is only in the quality, credibility of its outputs.
That someone raped someone isn't a moral fact. It's just an historical fact that science can confirm, and that may be legally punishable. The assertion 'rape is morally wrong' expresses a value-judgement about rape - not a fact about rape. If we were to list the facts about rape, we wouldn't add 'rape is morally wrong' to the list, because that isn't a factual assertion about rape.
As I had stated the Moral FSK must be similar to the scientific FSK and adopt scientific facts and truth in generating moral facts.
It is the same with the legal system that rely on scientific facts [DNA, scientific based evidences etc.] in generating legal facts. The historical, geographical FSK and others also rely on facts from the scientific FSK.
So there are moral facts via a Moral FSK which is very similar to the scientific FSK and rely on scientific facts from the scientific FSK.
I have asked you to show which of my 9 points are irrational and nonsensical.The fact that, after all our discussions, you still don't understand why your 9 assertions don't and can't entail a moral conclusion - well, it beggars belief. For example:
Everyone on earth confirms that humans killing humans is morally wrong; therefore humans killing humans is morally wrong.
The premise is obviously false, but even if it were true, the moral conclusion doesn't and can't follow - unless it's assumed that what everyone on earth confirms is morally wrong is indeed morally wrong - and that begs the question. And your supposed get-out - 'within the moral FSK' - does not repair the question-begging problem. It merely pushes it back to a previous subjectively-made judgement about moral wrongness.
But note the above points are merely for intuitive assessment, not to arrive at a definite conclusion of a moral fact.
To arrive at a moral fact, we need to verify and justify the moral fact empirically and philosophically and note I mentioned we have to resort to other sources of knowledge.
I mentioned one source from the neurosciences, e.g. a neural algorithm of inhibitors that inhibit a person from killing another human.
There is a long list of verification and justification which I have not gone into.
But what is critical is a moral fact must be verified and justified the moral fact empirically and philosophically which will confirm what is intuited in points 1-9 and others.
There you go again.Nope. The objectivity of the discourses and practices you list doesn't come from the discourses and practices themselves. It comes from the reality - and therefore the facts - described within those discourses and practices. Morality doesn't an can't have that objectivity.
Yes, the facts of the sources I listed by themselves do not have moral elements.
Note I mentioned above, but when adopted via a moral framework and system with others, they are moral facts and thus has moral objectivity just like what is done with the specific facts of the legal, medicine, history, geography, etc. FSK.
E.g. the legal fact within a legal framework that X is a convicted rapist is because of the scientific confirmation that his exclusive-DNA is found in the raped victim. This scientific fact could be the most significant evidence [say 80% weightage] together with other lesser evidences that confirmed he is the rapist.
Can you see the above as analogy with moral facts within a moral framework and system in relying upon scientific evidences and from other sources.
So there are moral facts within a moral framework and system to be used as a standard to determine whether supposed moral acts by people are morally right or morally wrong.
Anthropomorphic fallacyPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:31 pm The assertion 'rape is morally wrong' expresses a value-judgement about rape - not a fact about rape.
It's not a matter of WOULD. It's a matter of DID.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:31 pm we were to list the facts about rape, we wouldn't add 'rape is morally wrong' to the list.
You are the one who is talking nonsense and ignorant of classical logic.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:31 pmNonsense. Here's your argument:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 11:06 amNote I mentioned the above is merely intuitive and is sufficient to give one a hint of the existence of the moral fact, humans killing of humans is morally wrong.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:12 am Not one of the above - or the assertions they imply - entails the conclusion: therefore killing humans is morally wrong. In each case, that conclusion has to be assumed as a premise, which begs the question. (You do understand what begging the question means?)
What question is there to beg, the above is not a proper argument with a definite conclusion.
The majority of humans regard the killing of humans by humans as morally wrong; therefore the killing of humans by humans IS morally wrong.
That's a proper argument with a definite conclusion - a conclusion that begs the question, because it assumes that what the majority of humans regard as morally wrong is indeed morally wrong. And that's demonstrably false, because it could be - and often has been - the case that what the majority of humans regard as morally wrong is not be morally wrong.
Again your knowledge is shallow and narrow.When I hear an appeal to intuition, I reach for my metaphorical revolver - because it's always the last resort of the intellectually defeated - just like the appeal to faith.However do you dispute the points I raised for an intuitive assessment?
What we need is evidence and sound argument, not intuition.
You keep forgetting the essential of a moral framework and system that contribute to moral facts. Note again;Wake up. Your factual assertions may be true. But even if they are, they don't entail the moral conclusion.Is any of the points irrational or nonsensical? if so, which one.
I believe the above points are already empirically evident and others are very empirically possible to be true.
I have mentioned a '1000' times there are moral facts and moral conclusion.As I've shown, the truth-value of a factual assertion made to justify a moral conclusion IS NOT THE ISSUE. Even if it's true, it doesn't and can't entail the moral conclusion. How many times?Note;
9. Would you agree the majority of all 'normal' humans on Earth would regard humans killing of human as wrong in general.
What is the possibility of the above being TOTALLY or highly false?
in contrast to say if I state 'unicorns exist.'
Nope!Try answering your own question.
Could it be that the fact that what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call oxygen and hydrogen - so that, in chemistry, the factual assertion 'water is H2O' is true, simply because it correctly asserts a state of affairs that exists whether or not we describe it in that way?
- And that a moral assertion, such as 'killing people is morally wrong' doesn't have the same function?
Could that be why constructing a moral system and framework is nothing like constructing a chemistry system and framework?
Yes 'water is H2O' is true in relation [conditioned] to a supposed state of affairs, but that is only conditioned upon the Chemistry FSK which is independent of personal opinions and beliefs.
But 'water is H20' is not ABSOLUTELY true independent of a Chemistry FSK.
Constructing a moral framework and system is the same as constructing a scientific framework & system and any other FSKs. The difference is only in the quality, credibility of its outputs.
I know full well of your position which is that of Philosophical Realism which state,NO, IT IS NOT THE SAME. And why? I know, just for fun, why don't you work out what you think my answer is to that question? It would be interesting to see if you can explain my argument, even though you disagree with it. It might help you to sharpen up your argument.
You missed my point.That someone raped someone isn't a moral fact. It's just an historical fact that science can confirm, and that may be legally punishable. The assertion 'rape is morally wrong' expresses a value-judgement about rape - not a fact about rape. If we were to list the facts about rape, we wouldn't add 'rape is morally wrong' to the list, because that isn't a factual assertion about rape.There you go again.
Yes, the facts of the sources I listed by themselves do not have moral elements.
Note I mentioned above, but when adopted via a moral framework and system with others, they are moral facts and thus has moral objectivity just like what is done with the specific facts of the legal, medicine, history, geography, etc. FSK.
E.g. the legal fact within a legal framework that X is a convicted rapist is because of the scientific confirmation that his exclusive-DNA is found in the raped victim. This scientific fact could be the most significant evidence [say 80% weightage] together with other lesser evidences that confirmed he is the rapist.
Can you see the above as analogy with moral facts within a moral framework and system in relying upon scientific evidences and from other sources.
So there are moral facts within a moral framework and system to be used as a standard to determine whether supposed moral acts by people are morally right or morally wrong.
