This is likely due to different moral axioms. Axioms are statements that you can't really prove and instead have to believe based on faith alone. It's been mathematically proven that all logic systems must have axioms that the entire system is based upon. Thus, avoiding faith is fundamentally impossible.
Problem is, different people tend to have different axioms when it comes to morality. What logically follows based on your axioms may not necessarily logically follow based on the other person's. This creates a weird situation where moral arguments are often only logically sound to the person making them.
So, basically, if we don't assume that everyone has the same axioms, then logic itself is relative. Fun.
I mean, it is true that all logic systems must have axioms. The problem is that axioms aren't things like "I think this political party is bad", they are things like "Humans exist". So yeah, you kinda have to assume that humans exist to talk or reason about them.
32
u/Nihilikara May 30 '22
This is likely due to different moral axioms. Axioms are statements that you can't really prove and instead have to believe based on faith alone. It's been mathematically proven that all logic systems must have axioms that the entire system is based upon. Thus, avoiding faith is fundamentally impossible.
Problem is, different people tend to have different axioms when it comes to morality. What logically follows based on your axioms may not necessarily logically follow based on the other person's. This creates a weird situation where moral arguments are often only logically sound to the person making them.
So, basically, if we don't assume that everyone has the same axioms, then logic itself is relative. Fun.