3 ms·

You're right that ethical axioms are subjective. But most arguments tend to center around the application of those axioms . I often find that people are in comp

You're right that ethical axioms are subjective. But most arguments tend to center around the application of those axioms . I often find that people are in complete agreement in their axioms, but come to different conclusions in real world scenarios - due to flaws in their reasoning or refusal to consistently apply their own reasoning for personal reasons (I know this is wrong, but I really want to do it).

emodendroket 9y ago
Maybe so, but I don't think that accurately describes the groups the parent post listed.
- Falling3 9y ago
  It doesn't. Which is exactly why I brought it up. I don't think that the groups that the parent mentioned necessarily cover the variety of opinions that we're talking about in this specific case. I don't think foundational differences in ethics fully account for the disagreement that we're seeing here.
DugFin 9y ago
>due to flaws in their reasoning or refusal to consistently apply their own reasoning for personal reasons That's not the entirety of it. The problem is that these ethical problems exist within a certain societal framework, and that framework is made of multiple overlapping assumptions, habits, traditions, and expectations, some of them contradictory. Two people's axioms might be identical, but they may come to two opposite conclusions over whether these identical axioms apply to a given situation based on how they each subjectively weight the assorted related circumstances. They'll BOTH claim that the other's bad conclusion is due to "flaws in their reasoning", and can still both have perfect internally consistent reasoning for their own conclusion. Ethics isn't physics. There often ISN'T a right or wrong answer, only a variation in assumptions.
- Falling3 9y ago
  I know that's not the entirety of it. But it accounts for far, far more ethical disagreements than people are willing to admit. I've had a lot of discussions with people around ethics and the use of logical fallacies really can't be understated.
JadeNB 9y ago
> I often find that people are in complete agreement in their axioms, but come to different conclusions in real world scenarios - due to flaws in their reasoning or refusal to consistently apply their own reasoning for personal reasons … or, less cynically, because there's no reason to expect informal, philosophical reasoning from not-necessarily-consistent axioms always to lead to the same result?

emodendroket 9y ago

Maybe so, but I don't think that accurately describes the groups the parent post listed.

Falling3 9y ago
It doesn't. Which is exactly why I brought it up. I don't think that the groups that the parent mentioned necessarily cover the variety of opinions that we're talking about in this specific case. I don't think foundational differences in ethics fully account for the disagreement that we're seeing here.

DugFin 9y ago

>due to flaws in their reasoning or refusal to consistently apply their own reasoning for personal reasons That's not the entirety of it. The problem is that these ethical problems exist within a certain societal framework, and that framework is made of multiple overlapping assumptions, habits, traditions, and expectations, some of them contradictory. Two people's axioms might be identical, but they may come to two opposite conclusions over whether these identical axioms apply to a given situation based on how they each subjectively weight the assorted related circumstances. They'll BOTH claim that the other's bad conclusion is due to "flaws in their reasoning", and can still both have perfect internally consistent reasoning for their own conclusion. Ethics isn't physics. There often ISN'T a right or wrong answer, only a variation in assumptions.

Falling3 9y ago
I know that's not the entirety of it. But it accounts for far, far more ethical disagreements than people are willing to admit. I've had a lot of discussions with people around ethics and the use of logical fallacies really can't be understated.

JadeNB 9y ago

> I often find that people are in complete agreement in their axioms, but come to different conclusions in real world scenarios - due to flaws in their reasoning or refusal to consistently apply their own reasoning for personal reasons … or, less cynically, because there's no reason to expect informal, philosophical reasoning from not-necessarily-consistent axioms always to lead to the same result?