This is the view I gave
here , and expanded on it in other posts on that thread.
There are often moral principles that compete with each other. An example of two, "It is good to help others" and "It is good to help yourself". What people do in practice is apply both principles using their best judgement to find some kind of balance. There may be a whole complex of principles and personal experience that go into that judgement. That's what causes the differences in opinion.
The personal decision process is based on mental processes that aren't even understood, much less modeled mathematically. The fact is that mathematics is a very weak tool when it comes to handling really complex systems. However, human beings can be very good at coming up with workable insights, conclusions, and decisions in the midst of a relatively chaotic mixture of information. They may very well be unable to give a logical line of inferences for how they arrived at their gestalt. If Sklansky induces them to try he can often make short work of them. But that is not because their thinking process is flawed. It is because Sklansky's method of linear logical inferences is inadequate to the task.
PairTheBoard