Axioms and discussion filters

AXIOM |ˈaksɪəm| noun A statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

Discussing with people about politics or philosophy can be incredibly frustrating when you start from incompatible axioms or first principles. You're simply seeing the world itself from fundamentally incompatible lenses and you'll never convince or even understand each other.

So, in order to save me time and headaches, I have a list of axioms and basic principles derived from them that I use as filters to determine if it's even worth discussing with the other person. I'm happy to debate these principles themselves, as it can be very stimulating, but if we can't agree on them I'll refuse to touch any other topics.

1. Reality exists

This is true regardless of our capacity to fully and correctly perceive or understand it.

If you don't believe there's such thing as reality, there's no point in discussing anything else.

1.1. A is A (Law of no contradiction)

If reality exists, non-reality doesn't exist. Two mutually exclusive things can't be true at the same time. Equally, something can't be true and false at the same time.

If you don't agree with this, it's impossible to discuss or debate anything.

1.1.1. Morality is independent of outcome or necessity

If an act is immoral, the fact that it can produce a desirable or necessary outcome doesn't change it's nature.

Travelling back in time and killing Hitler as a baby would still be immoral because at that point he was still innocent.

Life is complicated and humans are fallible, so sometimes we might commit immoral acts, by necessity or mistake. But we shouldn't delude ourselves and pretend it was right. Rationalising can be a dangerously slippery slope.

2. Humans are rational creatures

This means we're not automatons simply reacting to stimuli. We reason and can plan and form abstract thoughts. This doesn't mean we are rational in the colloquial sense. Acting emotionally or making objectively wrong decisions is still rational because it follows some reasoning, as basic or flawed as it can be.

If you don't think we are rational, why are we even having a discussion?

2.1. Humans have free will

The fact that we can reason means we can act against our natural instincts if we choose to. How hard or painful it is to do so is irrelevant, the fact that we can do so remains.

If you are a determinist there's no point in discussing anything beyond this. What would be the point? After all, our opinions, arguments, and reactions are not ours to change.

2.2. Forcing an innocent to act against their will deprives them of their humanity. Thus, coercion is immoral.

COERCION |kəʊˈəːʃn| noun The practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

(Notice the innocent. See principle 2.3)

Ancient philosophers and thinkers that justified slavery did so by arguing their victims were little more than animals, or as punishment for serious crimes.

What exactly constitutes coercion or a threat is something more complex that can be discussed.

However, if you don't agree with this, your only principle is the law of the jungle, where might makes right, and thus there's no point in debate or discussion. In fact, if you're still trying to have a discussion, you're just a wolf in sheep's clothing, waiting for the right conditions to ditch any pretence of civility and impose your will by force. As such, you're not only immoral, but evil. A barbarian only temporally civilised by the fear of punishment from someone stronger than yourself.

2.2.1. For the same reason, killing an innocent is also immoral

2.2.2. Depriving an innocent of the fruit of their labour is essentially forcing them to produce those goods for you. Thus, theft is also immoral.

Because labour requires time and effort, its fruit is then a “manifestation” of that portion of your life.

This makes theft a minor, opportunistic version of slavery. Thieves take whatever they can from whatever their victim has produced at that point. Slavers force their victims to produce something specific, then steal all of it, and will continue to do so indefinitely.

In a twisted way, if you consider their victims as “natural resources”, thieves are nomad slavers and slavers are sedentary thieves.

If you think you have a claim to others' lives, in full or in part, just because you want them, you're someone that won't recognise anything other than violence, much less rational arguments.

2.3. This means you have the innate moral right to self-defence

An innate moral right means it's not given to you by any State or government, and it'll remain morally correct regardless of what law or society says.

This means the use of force in response of a threat or aggression is always legitimate. The proportionality of it is a different question.

If you are against this right, you're not only a brute, but a coward. Wanting to steal and slave others but only daring to do so if they're unarmed.

This however doesn't make any and all voluntary interactions necessarily moral, but that's a different topic that can be debated.