[Darryl_P]

The OP is certainly valid within a homogenous group of people who share the same core values. It may even be valid between two such groups who are competing for territory, resources, souls or whatever, but in this latter case you run into problems if you believe the only thing required is for both sides to work on their logical deduction capabilities.

Suppose both sides (correctly imo) conclude that it is OK to kill in self-defense. Suppose further that both sides consider the existence of another group with markedly different values working towards getting the same sacredly important thing (like land, resources or souls, say) as a threat against which self-defense must be practiced.

Here we could have two groups of perfect logicians with different values but similar moral axioms concluding that it's ok to kill the other.

Now suppose instead that the groups are not perfect logicians and can't articulate themselves too well, yet using the subconscious, the word of God that they sense somehow, or just gut feel they still come to the same conclusion. Are they better off fine-tuning their logical abilities or working on the issue at hand which is killing the other guy and/or avoiding being killed?