3 ms·
Well, they may very well be both wrong -- and perhaps that's the likely answer. What is the intersection may be an interesting question. I can't prove it but it
by jhgb 5y ago
Well, they may very well be both wrong -- and perhaps that's the likely answer. What is the intersection may be an interesting question. I can't prove it but it seems to me that finding the smallest intersection should exclude the subjective variations.
- beaconstudios 5y agoSo if we haven't found a rational moral system, who's to say it exists at all? Also, to say that the axioms being irrational means the system is irrational is incorrect. Logical systems can only be internally consistent within the bounds of their parameters, not universally consistent with regard to base reality. What matters is what emerges from the axioms and how useful it is.
- jhgb 5y agoI'm pretty sure that an empty rational moral system would still be a rational moral system. You'd just have more freedom in it. And regarding axioms, that's why you try to have as few as possible -- so that even though you can't prove them, you have at least the fewest possible points of failure possible.
- beaconstudios 5y agoSo if an empty moral system is rational, and that's the only one we have, isn't that the same as saying there is no rational moral system? I agree that you want to minimise axioms, but not because they're a source for error - after all, the concept of "valid" flows entirely from not violating the axioms - but because internal consistency leans on axioms not contradicting each other. That might have been what you meant though, in which case we're in agreement.