3 ms·
I'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 wh
by jhgb 5y ago
I'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.