5 ms·

Really good point on controversial issues. I think opposing sides of current hot topic issues (take your pick, gun control, abortion, pronouns) start with a dif

by jrog 8y ago

Really good point on controversial issues. I think opposing sides of current hot topic issues (take your pick, gun control, abortion, pronouns) start with a different set of axioms. Axiomatic differences can lead of vastly different conclusions, both with sound logical reasoning. Eg. If you take as axioms that it is always wrong to end life, and life begins at conception, abortion is wrong is a sound logical conclusion.

SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
> Eg. If you take as axioms that it is always wrong to end life, and life begins at conception, abortion is wrong is a sound logical conclusion. yes, and you'd also end up with an outright ban on civilian ownership of automatic weapons, amongst other safety measures. But you don't often see those two together. I think that the axioms are a layer or two below that, and might involve concepts like "individual responsibility" and "greater good"
- dmreedy 8y ago
  Agreed; it seems likely that the axiom system of the typical pro-life defender[0] is closer to "It's always wrong to end an innocent life"; this requires the inclusion of a set of axioms defining innocence (and thus probably invoking some combination of free will, and an absolute moral axis. A convenient framework for this includes a soul). This way you preserve the ability to defend yourself, to take the life of an enemy soldier, etc, while still being able to justify a pro-life position. It also allows for the death sentence for murderers. --- 0. there are, of course, different sets of axioms that arrive at superficially similar conclusions. For example, the category of pacifist that believes that any loss of life is not justifiable; this kind of person will reject both abortion and ownership of weapons, war, etc.
- jrog 8y ago
  It could also be that either side of these debates are unknowingly using abductive reasoning for how they feel about a stance that conflicts. Perhaps the proposed axioms come after to explain how people feel about controversial issues. Funny enough, this conversation could also be a form of abductive reasoning. We're inferring that people are using abductive reasoning because people often hold conflicting moral views, though using abductive reasoning wouldn't necessarily guarantee conflicting views.
the_af 8y ago
> Eg. If you take as axioms that it is always wrong to end life, and life begins at conception, abortion is wrong is a sound logical conclusion. Do note that often in this kind of controversial topics, the axioms are not held consistently by a given side (or the actual axioms are hidden and differ from the stated ones). For example, "it's always wrong to end a life [except when bombing abortion clinics | except when it's a death row immate]". Then the ad hoc provisions start, "oh, I meant an innocent life" ("but how can a nonsentient being be called innocent in any meaningful way?"), etc, etc. The debate then becomes anything but grounded on well defined axioms.
- Sangermaine 8y ago
  Well, the real mistake is believing that people think or behave in a consistent manner. All attempts at "rational" debate starts from this flawed premise, and thus always fails.
  - tunesmith 8y ago
    "All" and "always" are too strong. It's definitely possible to engage in rational debate with an intent to be consistent, and update one's own views when a conflict is discovered. It's just not universally done.
- bmm6o 8y ago
  It's not even that they aren't held consistently. Honestly, nobody (outside of philosophy papers) lists out their axioms and derives beliefs. They have beliefs and "reverse engineer" the supporting axioms, and don't particularly care if the axioms required for one position conflict with the ones required for another.
  - the_af 8y ago
    Agreed, I don't think people really debate emotionally charged issues from first principles. I think it's an error to think of this as a matter of logical axioms. That's not how people (usually) debate.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by jrog 8y ago

SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago

> Eg. If you take as axioms that it is always wrong to end life, and life begins at conception, abortion is wrong is a sound logical conclusion. yes, and you'd also end up with an outright ban on civilian ownership of automatic weapons, amongst other safety measures. But you don't often see those two together. I think that the axioms are a layer or two below that, and might involve concepts like "individual responsibility" and "greater good"

dmreedy 8y ago
Agreed; it seems likely that the axiom system of the typical pro-life defender[0] is closer to "It's always wrong to end an innocent life"; this requires the inclusion of a set of axioms defining innocence (and thus probably invoking some combination of free will, and an absolute moral axis. A convenient framework for this includes a soul). This way you preserve the ability to defend yourself, to take the life of an enemy soldier, etc, while still being able to justify a pro-life position. It also allows for the death sentence for murderers. --- 0. there are, of course, different sets of axioms that arrive at superficially similar conclusions. For example, the category of pacifist that believes that any loss of life is not justifiable; this kind of person will reject both abortion and ownership of weapons, war, etc.
jrog 8y ago
It could also be that either side of these debates are unknowingly using abductive reasoning for how they feel about a stance that conflicts. Perhaps the proposed axioms come after to explain how people feel about controversial issues. Funny enough, this conversation could also be a form of abductive reasoning. We're inferring that people are using abductive reasoning because people often hold conflicting moral views, though using abductive reasoning wouldn't necessarily guarantee conflicting views.

the_af 8y ago

> Eg. If you take as axioms that it is always wrong to end life, and life begins at conception, abortion is wrong is a sound logical conclusion. Do note that often in this kind of controversial topics, the axioms are not held consistently by a given side (or the actual axioms are hidden and differ from the stated ones). For example, "it's always wrong to end a life [except when bombing abortion clinics | except when it's a death row immate]". Then the ad hoc provisions start, "oh, I meant an innocent life" ("but how can a nonsentient being be called innocent in any meaningful way?"), etc, etc. The debate then becomes anything but grounded on well defined axioms.

Sangermaine 8y ago
Well, the real mistake is believing that people think or behave in a consistent manner. All attempts at "rational" debate starts from this flawed premise, and thus always fails.
- tunesmith 8y ago
  "All" and "always" are too strong. It's definitely possible to engage in rational debate with an intent to be consistent, and update one's own views when a conflict is discovered. It's just not universally done.
bmm6o 8y ago
It's not even that they aren't held consistently. Honestly, nobody (outside of philosophy papers) lists out their axioms and derives beliefs. They have beliefs and "reverse engineer" the supporting axioms, and don't particularly care if the axioms required for one position conflict with the ones required for another.
- the_af 8y ago
  Agreed, I don't think people really debate emotionally charged issues from first principles. I think it's an error to think of this as a matter of logical axioms. That's not how people (usually) debate.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]