@bns, good point, have not done much thinking what axioms result to yet. Closest i got was in post #33. I find it very hard to find anything that leads from it, especially for the non-ethics-axioms.
Considering axioms that exclude each other, I would say saying that there is only one thing which is the universe(non-external) and things are all part of that pretty much remove the need for the axiom that some things interact. It also pretty much contradicts the one-consciousness makes world idea.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bns Second, I will assume that I am able to perceive and understand the world around me. If not, then what's the damn point? I cannot do without this one. I'll add to this that other people are what they seem, and can also perceive and understand the world as well (generally speaking) as I can. |
Do the dealing-with-world axioms not cover that? The assumption about different races is not one i would quickly assume. Looking at my feel-good axioms, i see no reason to deal with beings on a per-creature basis. Classifying creatures under catagories like cat, dog, mouse, human is just a method of dealing with them, not being able to assess them all. BTW on the slashdot forum, i had a discussion about that once, the counterargument being that people would in practice use this viewpoint as license to neglect other humans their rights.
Perhaps some things like free speech can be argued from the ethics-axioms, assuming that some consciousnesses do not follow the axiom, or have very different ones, and one cannot easily decide which, therefore everyone should be able to communicate what they think about others, discrediting people that are "immoral" before they "hurt the cause". (hard to say if that is a very practical view, though)