Two axioms of ethics

Ethics
1

In another thread, I discussed whether we should replace the golden rule with the rule of thumb (I should have used the axiom of thumb instead). In that thread, I showed that the negative golden rule can be derived from the axiom of thumb. I, however, couldn’t derive the positive golden rule from the axiom of thumb. @Leontiskos and I also noted that both negative and positive golden rules are problematic in some situations, so we have to be cautious about their usage. The axiom of thumb, in simple words, states that each person has all the rights in his/her life (ownership) and has no rights over the life of others (non-ownership). Let’s call this the personal right axiom from now on. We can show that the negative golden rule follows from this axiom.

P1) You have no right to another person’s life (non-ownership)
C1) If so, you have no right to violate their lives (from P1)
P2) You don’t want others to violate your life (self-ownership)
C2) Therefore, you must not violate others in the way you reject being violated (from C1 and P2)

Humans are, however, social creatures. This means that there is another sort of right, so-called relational right. We can show that the positive golden rule follows from the relational right axiom.

P1) The relational right requires sustaining the relationship that generates the relational right
P2) If one must sustain a relationship, one must engage in the mutual care of the relationship that the relationship creates
P3) If one person must engage in the mutual care of the relationship, one requires acting toward others as one wants others to act toward oneself
C) Therefore, the relational right entails the positive golden rule

So, I showed that both positive and negative golden rules follow from two main axioms, relational and personal right, respectively. Moreover, given the definition of morality, morality is a system of thought about what is right and wrong, based on evaluating how actions affect other people’s lives or one’s own, I think these two axioms can resolve moral issues completely since these two axioms define humans’ rights on social and personal levels. The personal right axiom generates autonomy, consent, negative duties (don’t harm, for example), and the negative golden rule. The relational right axiom generates duties of care, responsibility toward others, reciprocity, and the positive golden rule.

2

My point was only to demonstrate that the Golden Rule is not formally equivalent to your “rule of thumb,” and that the negative formulation of the Golden Rule in particular leads to different outcomes than your “rule of thumb.”

3

Yes, I agree with that. The rule of thumb, in fact, is an axiom rather than a rule, since we can derive the negative golden rule from it, and it is a basic thing that no one can deny.

4

I showed that you cannot derive the negative golden rule from it, namely because the negative golden rule entails possible outcomes that contradict the “rule of thumb.” Given that the counterexamples I provided in your old thread are incompatible with the “rule of thumb,” therefore it is not possible to derive the negative golden rule from the “rule of thumb.”

5

No, you didn’t show that the negative golden rule cannot be derived from the rule of thumb. You just show that they are not consistent in some cases. The derivation of the negative golden rule from the rule of thumb is given in this thread and another thread. I don’t see any problem with the derivation. I have to confess that I don’t understand how a derived rule could be weaker than an axiom that is used in the derivation, though.

6

Well, if X contradicts Y then you cannot derive X from Y. That’s why my counterexamples show that you cannot derive the Golden Rule from your “rule of thumb.”

7

Where did you get that from? Again, you just showed that they are not consistent in some cases. There are many cases that are consistent with each other. So, we cannot say that they always contradict each other.

8

If two rules are partially consistent and partially inconsistent with one another, then the one cannot be derived from the other (because they are not wholly consistent).

If you like you can think of it like this: the two sets of moral propositions which the two rules generate are not consistent, therefore the rules are not consistent.

9

Again, where do you take this from? It seems that it is not valid, given the fact that I derived the negative golden rule from the rule of thumb, and they are not fully consistent.

10

What exactly does it mean to solve a moral issue.

There is no detail about the limit/extent of these rights. If the right to property is wrapped up in the right to self-ownership, it is obvious that rights to self-ownership are not equal among people.

“Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor.” [1] (Robert Nozick)

Is it moral (right) to be taxed, if I prefer not to be taxed? Just because some law and justice system determines how to resolve legal issues doesn’t mean justice or moral resolution has been achieved between those affected.

Theoretically we can solve the problem that pigs can’t fly if we put them on airplanes. But will we solve the problem by putting pigs on airplanes. (Imagine non-flying pigs as one of the worst moral problems.)

Maybe try to relate these issues to your moral axioms. Give us an example of how your axioms solve moral issues.

11

My argument from the counterexamples is valid. As to your argument:

I didn’t address this because the form is quite strange. I pointed out that P2 is an ‘if’ without a ‘then’, and you replied that, “I put ‘if’ to mention if you accept the rule thumb.”

So apparently P2 means this:

  • If you accept the “rule of thumb,” then you don’t want others to violate your life

With that sorted, it is still not clear how C2 is being inferred. The idea is apparently, “You don’t want others to violate your life, and you have no right to violate the lives of others, therefore C2.”

The first problem is that P1 says nothing about what I want. It only says something about what rights I have. So there is a logical leap from “I have a right to prevent others from violating my life,” to, “I do not want others to violate my life” (and my first counterexample showed that this leap does not always obtain).

The second problem is that even if that logical leap were valid, we would have shown only one single case where the negative Golden Rule holds. There is nothing to justify this inference: <If I must not violate another’s life in the way I reject my life being violated, then it is generally true that I must not do unto others what I would not have them do unto me>.

The interesting thing about the Golden Rule is that it is adaptable to all sorts of different cultures and circumstances. So a Lockean “right to life” based on sovereign individualism will surely countenance the Golden Rule along the lines of its own axioms, but cultures which reject the Lockean paradigm are also quite happy with the Golden Rule. So while I agree that the Golden Rule can be applied to Locke’s moral/political philosophy, nevertheless this does not mean that Locke’s philosophy entails the Golden Rule in its full, adaptable force. Lots of things that are compatible with the Golden Rule are incompatible with Locke, even though Locke will accept the Golden Rule in every case where his axioms are secure.

12

It means that these axioms can help us to understand what is right or wrong in a moral situation, so we can then decide in a moral situation based on these axioms. In fact, we can make a series of simple arguments for different situations based on these axioms only and derive whether a decision in a moral situation is right or wrong.

The personal right axiom is the base, but any person has to give up a part of their personal right to live in a society, since living in a society requires relational rights as well.

For example, we should not harm or kill people, which can be deduced from the personal right axiom. That is true because of the axiom of personal right; we don’t have any right to their body or existence. As another example, we should be respectful to others if we care for the relationship we have with them. So being respectful follows from the relational right axiom.

13

C2 follows from P2 and C1, considering the reciprocal constraint. The reciprocal constraint states that what applies to you applies to others as well, and it can be easily established from the rule of thumb.

Are you talking about P2 here? P1 only says that you don’t have any right to another person’s life. So I don’t understand what you are talking about.

I don’t completely understand what you are trying to say here. I did indeed write my argument in a way that applies to one person only, but you can extend it by applying the same type of argument to another person as well. So, the negative golden rule follows from my argument.

14

Let’s consider two persons, X and Y, and apply the rule of thumb to them. From X’s point of view, he has all the rights in his life and has no right in the life of Y. This means that X’s life should not be violated, as well as Y’s life. This is the reciprocal constraint. So, if X wants his life not to be violated, then he should not violate the life of Y as well. And here is the form of argument in syllogism form:

P1) You have all the rights to your life (self-ownership)
C1) If so, your life should not be violated (from P1)
P2) You have no right to other persons’ lives (non-ownership)
C2) If so, you have no right to violate their lives (from P2)
C3) If you don’t want others to violate your life, you should not violate the lives of others (from C1 and C2)

15

Suppose we have a new rule, the b-rule. According to the b-rule, one has a right to ride their own bicycle and not the bicycles of others.

  • P1) You have all the rights to your own bicycle (b-rule)
  • C1) If so, your bicycle should not be violated (from P1)
  • P2) You have no right to other persons’ bicycles (b-rule)
  • C2) If so, you have no right to violate their bicycles (from P2)
  • C3) If you don’t want others to ride your bicycle, you should not ride the bicycles of others (from C1 and C2)

Note that I am just copying your own reasoning, and at this point we can ignore the question of whether it is valid or invalid. Even if it is valid, C3 is not the Golden Rule. It’s just a claim about bicycle-rights or life-rights. The Golden Rule is much more than that.