@utabintarbo: heh i was part-but-not-entirely-joking about you being scared i guess. You did a similar thing implying we were threatened. (btw i will have to go over what you said earlier, bit confused about that now, and that time thing) I am pretty scared of those glowing eyes!
@reiki: You have a point though. Seems off topic, since it is about why you should discuss philosophy in the first place. I you wish to, make a thread. We are way to intelectual to have fun.
Does that axiom say anything at all? not-universal -> actions arising from cognitive thinking could be anything. Maybe saying they are different in each consciousness says something but for what use?
Actually, I personally do not like that idea at all. As i said earlier should i look down all day to prevent me killing ants by standing on them? The dignity of life is already covered by the feel-good ethics axioms in my view. Different consciousnesses having different weights of importance in feel-good and all. (Hmm maybe i should note that feel-bad of a creature is "negative" feel-good) I have the feeling that maybe you are constructing the feel-good axiom without knowing it yet, because maybe later, you will argue that you value human life more than a rats, and a rats more then a ants life. In other words giving them weights.
He posted bits of the German law earlier, and as a law it is pretty well thought out. (holy shit Sherlock :-p, it is a constitution ) But not as actual axioms. And i think there are pretty good reasons to keep it that way, even if there was some kind of consensus about axioms. (like people deluding or using ill logic themselves as to what the conclusions should be, as talked about earlier.)
Although i do not like it as an axiom, as i said above, I think that this issue is the same as the one that good and feel-good has. It is probably intrinsic to ethics-axioms that this problem turns up somewhere.