Is it possible to construct a system of ethics purely based on math (logic)?
Is +ve number better than -ve number?
Is higher complexity > lower complexity?
Is more information > less information?
>>7739956
No, ethics is a human concept after all.
>>7739987
So is math.
>>7739991
fuck you retard
>>7739956
People like >>7739987 are too much engineers to know that maths can technically define anything, not just things to do with numbers.
Just come up with a couple of axioms about what is absolutely bad or good and then prove other things that are not in your list of axioms that are good or bad.
For example
Axiom 1: Killing is bad
Axiom 2: Helping someone is good.
Axiom 3: Good things have priority over bad things
Lemma 1: Genocide is bad.
Proof:
Killing is bad. Genocide involves many killins. Therefore genocide is bad. QED.
Lemma 2: Assisted suicide is good
Killing is bad. But helping someone is good. Good things have priority over bad things. Therefore assisted suicide is good.
QED.
And so on.
>>7740036
Lemma 3: Genocide is good
Proof:
Killing is bad. Genocide involves many killings. But they shave coins and killed Jesus. Good things have priority over bad things. Therefore Genocide is good. QED.
>>7740036
Lemma 3: Cuckolding is good.
Proof:
Helping someone is good. Letting my gf fuck another guy is helping her to be satisfied. QED
>>7739991
Math is abstraction
Ethics isn't
>>7739956
have some kant. Ethics don't get more logical than this.
>>7740064
So, there is no proof that OP question is right.
>>7740036
Read Spinoza.
>>7740097
No. In my post I just gave 3 axioms. Just add more.
>>7740105
>an insane amount of loopholes
But that is why we are turning to mathematics. There are no loopholes in math. With the right set of axioms and the right set of definitions you could even prove that the system has no loopholes.
>>7740036
>Axiom 1: Killing is bad
I disagree with this axiom, so what do we do now? Also I think there could be a more fundamental axiom that leads to this.
>>7739956
No, I think that's more suited towards philosophy. Which explains why hardcore scientists and mathematicians lack morale.
>>7740068
Isn't ethics an abstraction of ideal human behavior?
>>7740215
Yes good point
But mathematical abstractions are unchanging.
Ideal human behavior is dependent on each persons opinion.
So how do you solve the trolley problem with these axioms?
Are 5 unknown human lives worth more than one unknown life?
Does that enable vigilante behaviour to kill people who are going to kill someone else ensuring a massive killing chain?
Should abortion be legal?
Commence the battle
Where does everyone find these meme images of animals and anime characters with question marks?
>>7739956
something akin to utilitarianism. maximize some quantity, like happiness or preference satisfaction. CEV is closest I've seen to a consistent moral system that isn't abhorrent (see https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Coherent_Extrapolated_Volition )
>>7740036
the main problem is that ethics can hardly be objective , for example a genocide can be really good in the long term , but oviously bad for the people getting killed in the moment etc...
Still at least it might be a better alternative than "just derive from sect books from the bronze age war god and remove/add some things when it can create money"
>>7740092
Kantian ethics is kindergarten tier.
>>7739956
The non-supernatural solution:
Do people have 'a system of ethics'?
If your answer to that is yes, then the
answer to your question is also yes.
>>7740532
Genocide isn't necessarily a good thing in the long run either. Those who are less likely to get along with others might be setting the human race up for failure if an external problem comes along that is too large for one group of people to tackle on their own.
>>7740200
What are undecidable statements?
Any logcian here can tell me if fuzzy logic woukd be better suited for the job? Just got leyman understanding of it.
>>7739956
No
I kind of wish there is. It would help us a lot and it would help with making laws. We would be moving forward much more faster. Instead of trying to find out the answer the trolley question.
>>7740612
It's the other way around.
>>7740756
Got'EM!
HOW DID BUFFALO EVOLUVE
>>7740756
>>7740036
I like your example, although it's lacking as shown by the other responses. But it was just an example after all.
To be honest, I think all of us internally have a system like that. Like everyone of us has an internal set of moral axioms and derives their opinions from that. Like you think assisted suicide is good, but some people may have an axiom telling them that Everybody lies, and therefore you cannot be sure if that person really wanted to die, making you a murderer....or something like that. My logic here isn't that neat either.
>>7740797
And this is an example of atheists who didn't want to be good. I'm still right.
>>7740105
If you replaced the judicial system by a computer, you would still get less prison for killing a homeless than a young girl.
>>7739956
It is possible to build a theory that optimizes the well being of every individual. It has to take into account the interdependence of people's well being and the future predicted well being, which is possible but very complicated.
The latter raises the technical question of how far into the future we should account for predicted well being. If we ignore the future well being, we would keep using fossil fuels without giving a fuck but humanity would be fucked within 50 years. On the other hand, if we look too deep into the future, we would want to kill everyone right now because we know that everything will eventually turn to shit and so would rather have as few people as possible experiencing the end of times.
>>7740036
This is interesting anon. It works. Nevertheless these axioms are defined arbitrarily. The human moved by instinct ,feelings or whatever pick that axioms, which also are susceptible to change.
>>7740953
>And this is an example of atheists who didn't want to be good
ie atheists need to be told to be good or else they wont.
>>7740612
define good
>>7740797
There is no good, no evil.
Osama Bin Laden thought he was good, he thought he was stopping the oppression of his people and his religion by a foreign government.
It's all relative.
What's the value behind a set of ethics that are logical but arbitrarily defined? Not to mention anything founded on something subjective is bound to contradict itself at some point.
>>7739956
>a system of ethics
fgt pls
>>7741088
>It's all relative.
bulllllllllllllllllllshit
http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right
>>7739956
nope
ethics is applied symbolism
you need to have referents for those symbols.
>>7741570
I think we just reached a higher level of autism
>>7741575
> ad hominem instead of anything tangible, typical jesus-freak
oh well it's christmas eve, yeah you won congratz
>>7739956
No.
You can't logically explain the fundamental question of morals with maths
>You're out in a desert
>You have a bottle of water
>You see a guy dying of thirst
>He asks you to give him your bottle of water
>You ask why
>He says because he's dying of thirst
>You ask so why he needs your bottle
>So he doesn't die
>You ask, yeah but why should I give you my bottle
You can't answer that. It's morally correct to save someone's life, but there is no logical explanation why you should
>>7741603
I'm an atheist...
>>7740207
this objection is just as applicable to regular maths
>>7741020
>Nevertheless these axioms are defined arbitrarily
just like the rest of maths then
>>7741628
this objection is also just as applicable to every other question
>>7740290
you could construct a system that would give answers to all of those questions
the problem is: would they be the correct answers?
>>7740036
>Axiom 1: Killing is bad
>Axiom 2: Helping someone is good.
helping someone to kill someone else is good then ?
Axiom 1: Something is good if it increases the global happiness of the entire humanity.
Axiom 2: Something is bad if it decreases the global happiness of the entire humanity.
Axiom 3: Happiness is a human caracteristics hard to precisely measure for individuals, but easy to statistically measure in large groups.
Axiom 4: good>bad
>>7741695
Oh boy here we go
>>7741695
>good is gooder than bad
Well shit.
>>7739956
All morality and so ethics merely boils down to 'muh feels' and thus is worthless.
You can come up with "axioms" to base a system of morals on, but how do you know that system works? You'd need to test it, which is basically impossible.
Also, how would you quantifiably measure "good" or "evil"?
>>7739956
Axiom 1: OP is a faggot
Axiom 2: Faggots suck cocks
Lemma 1: OP sucks cocks
Proof:
OP is a faggot. Faggots suck cocks. Therefore OP sucks cocks. QED.
>>7741680
wrong
>>7740215
Depends what "ideal" means
>>7741027
Yeah, some athiests. Just like some religious people (crusades, Hitler, catholic kiddie diddlers, wbc, Islamic extremists)
Most athiests do good and most religious people do good.
>>7740036
>what is the difference between moral and ethics
>>7741886
>crusades
You realize a lot of these so-called crusaders had nothing to do religion at all? They just wanted to wreck shit legally. Actual crusaders were highly respected and lauded everywhere.
>Hitler, catholic kiddie diddlers, Islamic extremists
Nevermind, you're just one of those soulless sheeple blindly eating up mainstream media's bullcrap. Sciencefags are often like this, unsurprisingly.
>>7742032
Are you saying that hitler, pedophiles in the catholic church and islamic extremists dindu nuffin'?
>>7741886
>crusades
They were a justified response to militant encroachment
>Hitler
Was an atheist
>catholic kiddie diddlers
There are kiddie diddlers of every profession. Catholics are below average for them at half the general population's rate.
>wbc
Protestants aren't Christian.
>Islamic extremists
Muhammadans aren't Christian
>>7741695
Theorem: Genocide is good.
Proof: Consider a group of people that lots of people hate (we will call this group The Jews). The Jews would be unhappy if we killed them all. But there are more people who hate the Jews, and they would be happy if we killed all the Jews. Therefore, killing all the Jews would result in a net increase in global happiness. Further, once the Jews are dead, they can't contribute to global unhappiness (basically the actual situation with Native Americans). Therefore, Genocide is good.
>>7739956
Eugenics.
>>7742076
>Protestants aren't Christian.
I actually thought you were serious until this one. You pushed the b8 too far.
>>7742076
>was an atheist
>What is Mein Kampf
>>7742096
>>7742101
>Hitler emphasized again and again his belief that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on modern science. Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition [-] 'In the long run', [Hitler] concluded, 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together'
>>7742123
This is what I don't get of christians.
I know of atheists that did terrible things, like Stalin. However, I would never try to deny that in a desperate attempt to be on a moral high ground in a discussion because it is useless. I know that all I have to do is to be good myself and to promote good and if atheism ever becomes the biggest political power I would push for whatever reforms that are made to be peaceful.
Yet you christians will deny to the day you die that hitler was an atheist. You will deny that the crusades were all about religious belief and you will deny that pedophiles in the catholic church are not a big deal or are just a small minority.
And for what? What do you get? You 'win' an argument online? You will never better yourself as a person because you will never see the flaws of your own philosophy so that you can improve it.
You will never think why Hitler wanted to do all he did, you will never think what was wrong in the christian mind that it fueled things like the spanish inquisition.
You are not mentally stagnating. While I embrace the past of my philosophy I better it and myself, I correct the mistakes of the past. You still have in your own mind the same fuel that caused the holocaust and the crusades because you dare not accept that they happened because of the christian philosophy so you will never dare to question the christian authority to push a new christian philosophy that is truly, actually peaceful.
The same to muslims. They claim they are a religion of peace but they are just as fucked up and stagnating just as much as christians because they will never accept that their prophet was a rapist warlord who murderer without reason.
This is why your religion will die while non-religious philosophies will flourish in this century.
>>7742137
that hitler was a christian*
you are now mentally stagnating*
who murdered without reason*
>>7741680
Of course. Maths are a human construction.
>>7742137
Why do you care?
>>7742165
Do I care? I don't know.
I guess it just amuses me how hard christians deny reality just to make a point.
>>7742179
It amuses me that you wrote a wall of text expressing your disdain for people who have no influence on you.
>>7742137
>hurr durr crusades were bad
fuck off.
Muslims started it.
>talk shit get hit
>>7742193
>it amuses me that you would come to a discussion imageboard and then dare to write something that expresses an opinion you have.
I know, it makes no sense at all! As we now imageboards are only for clicking at the ads.
>>7742137
>pedophiles in the catholic church are not a big deal
They aren't. School teachers molest children 100 times more often while the media just laughs it off and courts give them a slap on the wrist.
>>7742212
But it is a big deal. It doesn't matter who does it.
I would despise a teacher just as much as a priest but there is a fundamental difference here.
For some reason, christians push for people to be celibate. Not only do they ask for abstinence only education but their own leaders are not allowed to fuck ever. That makes no sense! We are human beings, and we are male. We are programmed to fuck. The reason that so many of them get those perverted thoughts is because they hold their sexual urges for so long to the point it makes them crazy.
There is actual scientific research that points to prolonged abstinence causing mental problems right? Nothing big like autism of course but it twists your view of reality and cause anti social behavour.
Christians do this to their children and for some reason to themselves. Stop that. Just let the priests fuck the nuns (with proper consent, of course) and the problems would fix themselves.
>>7742208
You went on about moral highgrounds while you yourself were trying to speak from a moral highground.
>>7742197
>Muslims started it.
Some Muslims attacked some Christians. In response, some completely different Christians attacked some completely different Muslims, in what is known as the Crusades. So while the Crusaders would have said that "the Muslims started it," that only makes sense in crazy land. Like if you had a mustache and I saw on the news that a man with a mustache murdered someone clean shaven like me, so I went and burned down your house in "self defense."
>>7742225
I wouldn't call it a moral highground but if I were to call it so then I would right.
In my post I pointed out a fundamental difference between non-religious philosophies and the christian philosophy.
If you were to go to any atheist forum you would see plenty of discussion about what is right. The biggest ones being things like if atheism should also mean anti-theism, like some identify as and believe to be the case.
The most hardcore christian discussion I have ever seen has been if jesus was white or not, If the virgin mary was a prostitute, etc.
In a way, atheists are in a moral highground because the athiest philosophy changes as majority groups shift to support different causes. Christians still follow a thousands year old book with very little philosophical reform.
Some of you may now think that gay marriage is okay (and it is) but there are still passages in your holy book about homosexuals being an abomination.
>>7742241
Morality is subjective. Also you have some preconceived notion about which philosophies I follow despite not knowing me.
>>7742220
>That makes no sense! We are human beings, and we are male. We are programmed to fuck.
You are aware you're on a board filled with 20 something virgins, right? Just because you have no self control doesn't mean everyone is like you.
>The reason that so many of them get those perverted thoughts is because they hold their sexual urges for so long to the point it makes them crazy
Studies have refuted that to hell and back. Stop regurgitating it.
>twists your view of reality and cause anti social behavour
Stop reading reddit, you're embarrassing yourself.
>>7742235
>Some Nazis attacked some Jews. In response, some completely different Jews attacked some completely different Nazis, in what is known as the World War II. So while the Jews would have said that "the Nazis started it," that only makes sense in crazy land. Like if you had a mustache and I saw on the news that a man with a mustache murdered someone clean shaven like me, so I went and burned down your house in "self defense."
>>7742245
I am not claiming anything about you specifically. But having been raised in a christian family, I know very well the christian philosophy. I even believed in jesus until I was 12.
But indeed, morality is subjective. I am not an anti-theist so I am fine with living in a theist dominated world. Just let your priests have sex and fix the other minor problems your religion has, like hatred for various demographics.
>>7742246
>Just because you have no self control
I will admit that I may have very little self control when it comes to sex but there is no excuse to push abstinence to people who clearly want sex. In fact, it would be much easier for the virgins here to fuck if the christians dropped the abstinence rule so that a bunch of christians girls would stop being so tight and get some fuck once in a while.
>Studies have refuted it
I am not psychologist so I can't argue with you on that one. I will leave this here: http://www.psyplexus.com/ellis/83.htm and if you are interested then you are welcome to expand your view a bit.
However, talking from personal experience, the day I lost my virginity I started dropping my autistic and asocial tendencies and for some reason started getting higher grades in mathematics specifically. I mean it.
>Stop reading reddit
My link clearly isn't from reddit and I despise that false democracy pushing site.
Attacking me with names and stereotypes does you no good.
>>7742259
I'm not even Christian mate.
>>7742108
>Galileo in bottom left image
>Christians
The problem is that math isn's the world outside. It's only something we made. So yeas, we can easily make something what work on paper like ethic (whatever), but technicaly it's still only piece of nothing [shit] on paper (like our "math")
>>7742346
And?
>>7740036
>good
>bad
Are you 5? These black and white "morality" words are used for children. What is good or bad in this world? Search moral relativism.
>>7741570
>Sam Harris
That guy talks out of his ass a lot.
>Also science can show what is right or wrong
This is the same bullshit eugenicists were using 100 years ago. This guy is a quack.
>>7742404
Define bad as anything that ought to be punished by the law and good as something that ought to be praised.
That is all.
You could define a system where one of the axioms claims that touching your dick is bad but we are not retarded.
We are adults now, if someone were to tackle this problem and create the axioms then they would have a good idea of what should be good and what should be bad and if he is crazy then no one will ever take his axioms seriously.
This is why I believe that philosophers never grew out of their teenage years. That is why they try so hard to be 'deep', just like teenage girls on facebook.
>>7740036
nicely done, love this funny way of math.
>>7742416
I think there would be problem with "law". At least U can't take it like exact math background, because it isn's exact in "math way".
>>7742425
I know it wouldn't be exact because legal terms will never be able to be as rigorously defined as things like 'isomorphism'. But the point of this would be to make the legal system be as close to exact mathematics as it can.
>>7742427
Yeah, I think that really isn't bad idea, it's great. But it doesn't solve the problem......I mean there's same ethic problem of looking on "what's good or bad" even in "law", our "for math created law", or in our axioms. In that way our axioms would be same as our "for math created law". At least it would have same issues.
>>7742416
You're a pseudo-intellectual. You have no idea what you're talking about.
>>7742459
You are right. In the end, u knt nou muffins.
>>7742474
I didn't say the "you don't know nuffin" meme. But you, just, you don't know nuffin. You're throwing around terms and words into sentences like they mean anything. You talk like a politician. Lots of words and no substance.
>>7742519
topkek. I'm a math major. The only thing I do is read axioms, lemmas, theorems, definitions and suck my professor's cock.
I'll admit that I'm using the words in a non-rigorous manner but what do you want me to do.
>>7740612
>>7740797
>>7741027
>>7741081
>South America: Christian missionaries slaughtered thousands of the native peoples in the lords name, stealing valubale minerals and land from them.
>Russia: The Greek Orthodox church worked in tandem with the ruling class to keep the lower classes oppressed for centuries, helping to create a population ripe for revolution.
>North America: The American government, headed primarily by Christians, ran an organized campaign to oust the Native American people from their homelands, even going to far as to give them towels infected with deadly diseases.
>Germany: Christians came together to murder their neighbors for being Jewish, homosexual or gypsies, all biases that the Roman Catholic church encouraged through the middle ages and beyond.
> The Middle East: Religious warfare rages, with sectarian violence eventually spilling out onto the other continents, climaxing with 9/11, where religious fundamentalists fly themselves into building in an attempt to murder as many heathens as possible.
Sounds to me like people are just shit no matter what they believe.
>>7742108
Oh yeah, you really showed me. I have no idea what the fuck you showed me, but you sure showed me.
>>7742193
Oh shit guys, it's the post police! I promise officer, I wasn't going to go in depth about my thoughts, really!
>>7742537
>Atheists kill to advance atheism
>>>totally not related to atheism you guys
>Christians kill to get money and power
>>>totally related to Christianity man
dat confirmation bias
>>7742537
this
What the fuck is going on with /sci/ the last couple weeks? Is this a /pol/ invasion?
>>7742550
>tfw I never said that it was related to Christianity
>tfw the atheists wanted money and power too
>tfw none of this makes it any more sensible to believe in sky fairies
>>7742523
>I'm a math major
sure you are cupcake.
>>7741628
Of course there is a logical explanation.
Not helping him for means that you are to some extent insensitive to the death of another human being, which probably means that you are a psychopath.
If someone discovers that you are a psychopath, he will alert other people and you will either be killed, imprisoned or interned.
So it is logically in your best interest to help someone on the verge of death, if you have the ability to do so.
>>7742078
Correction, the genocide of a group of people unanimously hated by everyone else is good. Genocide is not good in general.
>>7742078
(I'm >>7742734)
Also, you are not taking in account the cost of the genocide. The targeted group of people is likely to fight back, and depending on the size of the targeted group, the cost of the genocide may outweigh the resulting happiness of such genocide.
Basically, I'm saying that genocide may cause war and that war causes unhappiness.
>>7742729
>if other people have the ability to find out.
>>7742819
True, but then there's living with the death on an innocent man on your mind. You might turn yourself in because of guilt... or live all your life in guilt, its not as unimportant as it seems.
Also, there are some logical reasons not to help the guy. You may not want to share your water because you won't have enough for yourself, or because the person you helped may try to kill you and/or steal your water after you helped him. These reasons outbalance the guilt you will feel for not helping him.
The main problem is the relativity of the concept of "good and bad".
For what we know, murder someone can be fair.
If you want to get rid of the subjectivity of good and bad, you have to consider what is good for the majority of the human population (same for bad).
A solution to avoid death for starvation everywhere, for example, can be generally considered someting "good".
Once you take the general good as a priority, you can use the causaility as your system of ethics.
Avoid causes that produce bad effects for the majority of people. Not only on a worldwide scale, also on a local one.
Example:
Premise:
I have to eat, otherwise I'm gonna die.
Options:
1. Steal the actual food.
2. Commit robbery to get money to afford food.
The first option is obviously the best because if you steal food in a supermarket, you're only damaging the economy of the owner.
Steal money from a bank will damage the economy of every bank's customer, hurting more people.
>>7742078
well I think genocide can be good indeed
>>7743728
>starvation everywhere,
define this
>>7739956
Is it possible to construct a system of math based purely on ethics?
>>7743763
Right
>>7743758
"Everywhere" in the world.
>>7741695
>>7739956
No. It is logically impossible to go from "is" to "ought"
>>7743797
Epic meme friend. U sure showed him.
>>7739956
You would have to attribute static numerical values to aspects of life that are subjective.
I suppose things like air and water should have high values. Food slightly less value based on calories.
Socialization and creature comforts less numerical value... etc. etc. In order of necessity.
Only once these values are attributed numerically can we begin creating such a system.
>>7742537
>Greek Orthodox church
It wasn't really Greek for about half a millenium before the revolution.
Just sayin.
If humans need ''religion'' in order to be moral and good then this is a pity organiism indeed
>>7745419
The "is vs ought" dichotomy is a fallacy and loses all its meaning when you take into account the scientific impossibility of free will.
>>7746004
So explain using only empirical evidence and logic why abortion should or should not be legal
>>7746034
People like you are evidence that abortion should be legal.
>>7746056
That's what I thought. Is vs Ought still stands.
>>7741683
Not really
>>7740036
The problem with this is that "someone" isn't defined. "Someone" can be you yourself or just any person you decide. So with that system you might say genocide because it can help at least person
>>7742096
He's right though
>lol we reject church
>we still call ourselves christians and every stupid shit we do happens in the name of christianity
It's like calling myself a NASA astronaut and killing the name of NASA. Doesn't really make me part of NASA
>>7742220
Catholic priests don't have a higher rate in pedophilia than any other group of middle aged men. You just think that because media blows up every single incident to enormous proportions while not giving the majority of pedophile assaults the same treatment.
Yes it is.
Now whether a country or entity will play the bully system on an ethical system. That's another issue at hand.
Legend has it. And I say legend only because it is not taught in academia or exploited in the media. Hitler basically applied an ethic system to war. Basically World War Two was a legal mess. And it still is. He'd basically file lawsuit after lawsuit for whatever unethical maneuvers his opponents made. It changed the face of war forever. Now his opponents on the other hand, had to sequester people. Keep them quiet. Pull strings here and there so as to not be ridiculed for their own corruptness in the future. It was a counter-intuitive strategy when you think about how pro-russian guerilla groups sued them. Following the same backing. Chaos will always be king.
>>7739956
>math(logic)
>>7746465
So what they did was use proxy nations with laws that counter whatever legal motion that exists to protect them. Or at least officials/soldiers seen as at fault. These countries usually have lenient serial killer laws and/or lack serial killer laws that could harm military men.
>>7746465
So from there they differ a guerrilla group from bona-fide military personnel (they had no other option). Now these countries had no extradition for these 'crimes'. Until lobbyist pressure heightens. So what usually occurs, straw persons are put into play that are internationally exposed. If anyone says they seen waldo, well, there's an easier warrant.
Everything is backed by ethic. The question is who wants what.
>>7746513
So the bully will usually dispose of whatever ethic that exists by pure propaganda. And setting international boards to criminalize a de facto nation. These means will usually affect diplomats, officials, high ranking military personnel.
Let's put 9/11. One of the great conspiracies lies within the rise of local/state militias. That for the most part were against the fed. Supposedly when the fed went to look at its 'funds'. They were short a couple of trillions. The fed was said to have gotten pissed of at certain states. Because some states were accused of using these misplaced funds to arm their own militia. So the fed was said to have seen this a mistrust and attacked many states themselves under the guise of Islamic terrorism. Some states may not have been hit by a plane or a drone. But the laws that were issued by the fed gov't were made to strengthen the fed and weaken the states...
>>7746532
So they accuse the fed of not following through with anti-terrorist protocols. but issuing laws that will effect any state wanting to secede. They say the states that began the whole act of secession were the mining states. Or the most exploited. Petrol, uranium, gold, iron, coal...
>>7740036
>they still don't realise the base axioms of math don't make sense
How can you form a logical system based on the illogicality of maths?
>>7741678
There's quite a difference between objecting to your arbitrarily drawn killing axiom and objecting to, for example, the axiom of choice.
>>7739956
Ethics requires us to abandon rationality in favor of emotional bonds and social norms which often go against self-preservation and logic.
math is useless in this area, hence the rise of philosophy and social sciences.
>>7739956
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ethics
