The Real Life Important Point about Being Moral or Ethical.

[David Sklansky]

Enough of this high falootin debate about whether there is absolute morality, whether we need God for that, or whether deep down we are all selfish and cannot formally prove we are better than Nazis. Because that isn't usually the reason why people disagree about what is right. As usual the problem is more likely that people are weak in math.

Geometry provides a good example. For thousands of years people thought that Euclid's axioms were absolute self evident truth about space. Later it turned out that you can use other axioms and deduce different results that are not contradictory to each other. Later still it became apparent that the axioms of some of these non Euclidiean geometries actually did a better job than Euclid in describing how space really is. So the axioms of geometry moved from absolute truth to simply axioms that most people agreed on.

But here is the important point. When a tough geometry question is presented to a group of people, the fact that they will get different answers rarely is because they are assuming different initial axioms. It is because some or all of them are screwing up the deductive chain of resoning that leads from the axioms to the conclusion.

The same goes for ethics and morality. Sometimes people will disagree on an issue because of a basic difference in values or axioms that forces that disagreement. But more often it is because at least one of those debating doesn't think straight. The fact is that whether you get your set of moral principles from God, once and future king, empathatic feelings, or just common sense, you will find yourself in agreement about those principles with almost all others almost all of the time, at least in this country. Which means when you find yourself disagreeing with others about a particular question, it is probably NOT because of a basic value difference but rather because at least one of you is not well enough versed in formal logic to accurately come to the conlusion that your initial principles actually imply.

When I said there was no intrinsic way to determine how generous we should be to our handicapped, or for what goals it is right to experiment on mammals, or whether Hitler is horribly evil, I meant this in a technical way only. Because axioms, without God, are technically a matter of opinion. But if everybody basically agrees on most moral principles, or at least the ones germane to the specific subject at hand, it is usually very possible to answer questions like the above, given those principles. Possible but not always easy. Just like geometry questions aren't always easy.

Bottom line. Before you chalk up a moral disagreement with somebody to their diametrically opposed outlook on life. (or before you chalk up your difference with somebody on how to play a hand to the supposed different reads you and he have on your opponent) make sure that you and him have used the proper methods of deduction to get to your conclusion. And if you don't know for sure what that means, learn.