bethposting

beth (defunct)

@bethposting

rip

i guess follow me @bethposting on bsky or pillowfort

log inask
discord username:
bethposting
bethposting
@bethposting

why logic can't solve ethics

this is a pretty simple idea that a lot of people online seem to have never considered. basically, you can't deduce which actions are moral and which aren't, using solely logic and starting with no assumptions.

you can't really get anywhere in logic without accepting certain axioms. that's just how it works. that's how it works in math and that's how it works in saying things about the world.

when it comes to morality, people often assume that others share the same implicit ethical axioms as them without ever making that explicit, and i think that leads to a lot of people talking past each other and accomplishing nothing.

it's especially worth noting that there are groups of people that believe extremely strongly in axioms that such as "god says this this is wrong" or "ai will save 1 trillion lives in the future" and it's pretty hard to argue with someone who's starting from such an axiom

You must log in to comment.

in reply to @bethposting's post:

Quidam
@Quidam

Speaking of Kant, on of the strongest part of his moral philosophy is how he deduce morality from reason alone, or at least tries to. If it works, his system would be self-justified, which is not the case if you just have a set of random axioms. Of course, the big if here is "if it works."
If you are correct, then the next question becomes "is there some system of ethics that is better than the other?" I think to be consistent, you would have to accept that the answer is no. So then, what grounds do we have to impose our morality upon other? I think some values (axioms, sort of) are self-contradiction and because some value would lead to better human flurishing.
Plus, if what you say is true for ethics, doesn't that mean it is true for epistemology as well? Why believe that our sense give you an accurate enough picture of the world? Why believe that we need to be consistent at all, or follow the rules of logic? It could lead to extreme skepticism. (I think the way out is to remember that our questioning is done with a language and that all language come pre-packaged with assumption about the world and ourselves. That, or be pragmatist and remember that we are beings who wants things, and that a consitent logic is better to make predicition and guess than one which exploded.)

login to reply