5 ms·

It would be incredibly difficult, but I've always wished we could develop a (formal) axiomatic system of morality, such that with independent axioms that each p

It would be incredibly difficult, but I've always wished we could develop a (formal) axiomatic system of morality, such that with independent axioms that each person takes as true by default, all of that person's positions on the major issues would be immediately derivable from the axioms and would essentially be indisputable. Heated emotional debates that last for hours would instead turn into each party running a short computer program to determine whether their views are compatible. For example, one such axiom (not being rigorous here) may be "human life is valuable". If someone else takes "human life has no inherent worth", then you're kind of at an impasse, as each statement forms the basis of entirely different systems of morality.

xupybd 10y ago
Another example is the abortion debate, every one is quick to show the evils of the other side of the debate. But often they simply disagree on when human life starts and fail to ever identify that as the issue. Because of this most discussions on this topic become far more vitriolic than productive.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  One interesting observation was, that human life is continuous and has been for a million years. Don't know how that changes the discussion but its interesting.
- tomjen3 10y ago
  Even then the argument can actually be solved by the "famous violinist" argument (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/02/the-under-rated-famous-violinist-defense-of-abortion/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/02/the-under-rated-f...) and by pointing out that humans are not forced to donate a kidney, even though doing so has a great chance of saving the life of the recepient, and a live-donation results in a much higher quality of life for the receiver. In this case we value the body integrity of the first person more than the life of the second - even though both are undeniably human.
  - Natanael_L 10y ago
    OTOH in the case of abortion you have the difference that you take direct action against the fetus in favor of the mother, instead of just being passive and "letting nature take its course". In terms of ethics that's a huge difference. In fact I'd argue that an uncontradictory absolutist position for body integrity is impossible in the case of abortion (assuming the fetus is considered human!), since the only absolute resolution technically isn't abortion, but rather premature birth and artificially keeping the fetus alive. Of course the disagreement between camps remains on when a fetus becomes human...
robryk 10y ago
This assumes that moral systems that people have are selfconsistent. It's really hard to have a selfconsistent moral system.
pjc50 10y ago
> (formal) axiomatic system of morality See the entire history of philosophy and ethics.
- AstralStorm 10y ago
  Which is why there are so many formal or semi-formal systems.

xupybd 10y ago

Another example is the abortion debate, every one is quick to show the evils of the other side of the debate. But often they simply disagree on when human life starts and fail to ever identify that as the issue. Because of this most discussions on this topic become far more vitriolic than productive.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
One interesting observation was, that human life is continuous and has been for a million years. Don't know how that changes the discussion but its interesting.
tomjen3 10y ago
Even then the argument can actually be solved by the "famous violinist" argument (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/02/the-under-rated-famous-violinist-defense-of-abortion/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/02/the-under-rated-f...) and by pointing out that humans are not forced to donate a kidney, even though doing so has a great chance of saving the life of the recepient, and a live-donation results in a much higher quality of life for the receiver. In this case we value the body integrity of the first person more than the life of the second - even though both are undeniably human.
- Natanael_L 10y ago
  OTOH in the case of abortion you have the difference that you take direct action against the fetus in favor of the mother, instead of just being passive and "letting nature take its course". In terms of ethics that's a huge difference. In fact I'd argue that an uncontradictory absolutist position for body integrity is impossible in the case of abortion (assuming the fetus is considered human!), since the only absolute resolution technically isn't abortion, but rather premature birth and artificially keeping the fetus alive. Of course the disagreement between camps remains on when a fetus becomes human...

robryk 10y ago

This assumes that moral systems that people have are selfconsistent. It's really hard to have a selfconsistent moral system.

pjc50 10y ago

> (formal) axiomatic system of morality See the entire history of philosophy and ethics.

AstralStorm 10y ago
Which is why there are so many formal or semi-formal systems.