I think utabintarbo's axioms are just assumptions too. They have justifications, but then, so do other axioms. "Existence exists" follows from assuming ones own existence. Existence of consciousnesses because denying it would deny your own consciousness is not a proof either. (argued in #132) I do not follow "everything that exists its own nature"(Law of identity) reasoning either. I would say that the Law of identity is not really needed to base ethical axioms on, for that you assume that you can get a good guess on what responses of things are, in such a way that one can affect things in a way improving the chances of reaching a goal.

You are talking about Ayn Rand Importance Of Philosophy-site utabintarbo links to in his site. (that link is broken for me btw) I do not think he just regurgitating it, but as anyone, it is probably a good idea to critic ones own beliefs.(not saying you dont)
I have read a large chunk of that website, disagree to it very much. For one, being fed is not a human right according to the website, is depriving someone of food not 'force'. I mean, that person may not have ways to reasonably trade for food, given that, that person will be forced to do something. Either being deprived of freedom by having to work all his life for food, or by initiating 'force' against those who are in (much)better state.(or even only the latter) (here 'force' refers to how it is used in the website)

Much of what that website is in the 'ethical axioms' category. (Although i cannot say if it is axiomatically set up at this point) The ethical axiom seems to be self-interest, one owns life. The website claims (erroneously in my point of view) that self-interest is at least usually beneficient for the rest of the group, and also never includes initiation of force.
I agree on with the website, that the assumption of an 'absolute good' is not good enough, it does not specify at all what this good is, this absolute value is not determinable. Feel-good does specify it more, but one could still take pain and misery as feel-good, but that would mean one would like pain and misery oneself.(or that person is unreasonable?) Feel-good defined with observations of what consciousnesses do when given freedom(define as open options) has complications with people that have mental issues, but is better defined. Then there is the problem of what the weighs should be.
Admittedly, self-interest is one ethics-axiom that does have few issues with defining it self, as it is do what you want. Perhaps it can come very natural, survival of the fittest and all. But as the website says, humans have survived because of our brains, so i think humans should keep surviving by design, not by evolution.

I would like to add, the consequences of ethical axioms strongly depend on the nature of consciousnesses and things. Assuming feel-good axiom, if i was a stone(d) ager, i might think that everyone should judge at the spot, by themselves, from their own knowledge, the best thing to do in circumstances. Indeed, in that case that might even be true, but i much doubt that it is true in our age. In our age i might thing of free speech and promotion thereof, law (enforcement) as things to help us in our goal(s).

This site: Importance Of Philosophy is very pretentious in addition to being logically unsound.

Your post is very pretentious in addition to being logically unsound.

But the site is logically unsound. Take this definition that you've been using, for example:

This is terribly confused and here's a quick proof:

(1) Let's assume this definition is correct and makes sense. (assumption)

(2) This means any argument in the follow form is invalid:

(3) furthermore, it means that p itself is an axiom!

(4) So, let's apply this to reality. Take Euclid's famous proof of the infinitude of primes. It follows that the proof is falacious.

(5) furthermore, it follows that "There are a finite number of primes" is acually an axiom!

(6) This line of reasoning is increasingly ridiculous.

(7) Therefore the original assumption (1) is false (by reductio ad absurdum)

QED.

Saying it's pretentious was just my opinion. Here's why I say it's logically unsound:

1. Existence exists. Define existence to be all things that exist. Thus the axiom states "All things that exist exist." That is silly. Of course it's true. Also all ducks are ducks, all red things are red, and everything that farts farts. It's a meaningless axiom and it DOES NOT suggest that anything exists even if you take it to be true. The statement "all blorgs are blorgs" is very true, but there is no such thing as a blorg.

2. Identity. The stated proof of this one goes, "Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions." What?! That's not a logical foundation. I could claim that about anything!

3. Consciousness. The site doesn't even bother to suggest a proof for this one. It does mention Descartes' "proof," but then says he was wrong and does not go back to try to justify the "axiom." As to Descartes' argument, "You cannot logically deny your minds existence at the same time as using your mind to do the denying." This is very reasonable, but it is not logically rigorous. It assumes that your mind exists and that you must actively engage in denying something in order for that thing to be false. If something is false, then it is false whether I deny it or not. I happen to agree with Descartes', but the argument is not "irrefutable."


I quit reading after I got through the axioms. If the very foundation of the logical system is unsound, then the rest necessarily is also.

In last post, I should have expressed more how much i disagree, and that i did have criticism against that site, but thought they were off topic.I did get seduced into giving a little of my criticisms, though. We could make a thread for criticizing it, but utabintarbo having many views in common with it(not sure to what extend), we already indirectly criticized it quiet a bit.
Even assuming having only-self-interest as a desirable goal, the website assumes a lot about how large numbers of people behaving with self-interest behave collectively. It considers incarceration a example of 'initiation of force', but also says the government should sell the land it does not need. Where do people without money go then? No public areas, and if some people are nice enough to allow the poor on their space, there might not be enough space to allow people to move around. (AKA incarceration)

@bns, hmm i found the website interesting despite of the disagreeable presumptions(many of which where not noted either), and some things that dont make sense. The three axioms' definition is a bit strange, probably because of the strange definition of axiom, which seems to go against what a regular definition of an axiom is, and makes axioms requires proof in the first. (It cannot be combined with the 'regular' definition without taking precedence over the 'regular axiom')

That is why the axiom says nothing about blorgs. It says something about existence. That you do not seem to understand why this is necessary (see solipsism for one) is not the website authors fault.

That's what makes it axiomatic.

Just because you didn't understand what they were getting at does not make it untrue.

Essentially, they extended Descartes' axiom to account for existence (as opposed to solipsism, again). Sorry you missed that.

Your loss. No surprise though.

Please understand that the website in question provides a "Cliff's Notes" version of Objectivism suitable for a dynamic internet audience with a vanishingly short attention span. It is not a well-defended treatise, and should not be viewed as such. I find it to be a good "quickie" intro into the basic tenets of Objectivism, and philosophy in general.

I can give more/better sources if desired. Feel free to PM me.

Hmm, Importance Of Philosophy never considers itself just a "Cliff notes", but that does not mean you do. I did realize that the website and your opinion were the same.
If the "ethics axiom" is not only self-interest but also civility; non-initiation of force. I might agree on your conclusions from those "ethics-axioms". (But i would still disagree with the ethical premise)
I do disagree with the website, even with the extra premise, though. But some of the effort in that website is admirable. I am thinking of making something like that one day.
You can post the resources if you wish and it is not to much effort. If i get time i will look at them.(or pm you asking them again, if you do not think it is worth it, without my promise of reading them) I myself do not really have resources i could point to you about my own views. That is why i quote and link from outside so little. The upside of that is that i do not quote ambiguous statements and not explain either.