Ideology is nothing but post-rationalization

[Az]

Untrue. I can show that somebody else's axioms lead him to repugnant conclusions.

---- and then you'll still have to change him so he shares the same axioms - otherwise the discussion will continue infinately.

[Last Conformist]

It doesn't really matter if someone does what I think is the right thing based on the same axioms as I use or on another bunch, does it?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Az

Untrue. I can show that somebody else's axioms lead him to repugnant conclusions.

---- and then you'll still have to change him so he shares the same axioms - otherwise the discussion will continue infinately.

Duh. This isn't purely mathematical, Az.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
It doesn't really matter if someone does what I think is the right thing based on the same axioms as I use or on another bunch, does it?

If two axiomatic systems lead to the exact same consequences in all cases then they are equivalent.

[KrazyHorse]

i.e. Copenhagen and many-worlds interpretations.

[Az]

Duh. This isn't purely mathematical, Az.

Of course, of course. However, how substantial repugnancy/ taboo separation? It's more a question of degree of repugnancy, maybe?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


If two axiomatic systems lead to the exact same consequences in all cases then they are equivalent.

Certainly, but I was simply speaking of a situation where two different axiomatic systems agree in a particular instance. Moral discussions generally concern the appropriate course of action in some given scenario.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Az


Of course, of course. However, how substantial repugnancy/ taboo separation? It's more a question of degree of repugnancy, maybe?

It comes, as I said, when I compare the necessary additional axioms to those I already hold. Some stick out like a sore thumb. I'm generally tempted to believe that those are false signals coming from a particular cultural background.

Take, as I suggested, incest between two adult partners with no chance of conception.

I only have a very few basic axioms (4 or 5? Depends how you write them). "Incest is bad" is far too specific to qualify...

If somebody can show me why it's bad from general principles that don't **** up my system completely then I'll take another look at it.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Certainly, but I was simply speaking of a situation where two different axiomatic systems agree in a particular instance. Moral discussions generally concern the appropriate course of action in some given scenario.

Yeah, but the point is that I'd rather convince somebody of my axioms (rather than simply expedient ones) because (as I mentioned to Kuciwalker) of intellectual honesty and fear that what I've done will come back to bite me in the ass.

[KrazyHorse]

Much of moral discussion centres on application of unspoken, agreed-upon principles. Some of the deeper stuff doesn't.

There are certainly more than a couple of competing axiomatic systems out there. One, as Az mentioned, is a favourite of Libertarians. Mine is a variant of one that seems to be generally used by socialists...

[KrazyHorse]

I also tend to approach any repugnance to sexual practices with suspicion. Same with dietary habits...

[Az]

how about repugnance to taking life?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


It comes, as I said, when I compare the necessary additional axioms to those I already hold. Some stick out like a sore thumb. I'm generally tempted to believe that those are false signals coming from a particular cultural background.

Take, as I suggested, incest between two adult partners with no chance of conception.

I only have a very few basic axioms (4 or 5? Depends how you write them). "Incest is bad" is far too specific to qualify...

If somebody can show me why it's bad from general principles that don't **** up my system completely then I'll take another look at it.

relationships in family are fundamentally seperate from those of sex partner...

so while it would be ok, if the adults did not have a family relationship

if they did have the family relationship, the both their sex world, and family world would be confused, and their mental wellbeing would suffer

so I am fine with 'incest' as long as the members did not have a familial relationship before hand.. (with the issue of course of genetic issues with the offspring taken care of)

JM

[Jon Miller]

there is a reason why the biggest death nail to hopes of a relationship with a person is if they think of you as a 'brother' or a 'sister'

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Death knell.

And I agree with you that a choice of a sibling as a sex partner would often be a recipe for disaster. I'm just unwilling to dismiss it as an absolute wrong in the same sense that murder is.