[Autolykos]

Quote by: sdbest Apologies, Rob. I'm not good with names, but you'd think I could copy/paste a signature.

No problem.

I was mistaken, I had assumed that you "had a certain set of principles in mind [that were] any set of principles that is logically consistent (i.e., do not contain any inherent contradictions) and that also can apply universally."

That's what I thought. It's okay, though.

Not having a set in mind raises a question or two. What are your views about whether or not principles with the characteristics you've identified even exist.

I will presume that by "exist" you mean "are possible" (i.e., are possible for people to think of). Otherwise, you're committing the reification fallacy. Do I think sets of self-consistent principles are possible? Certainly.

If they do, how do you know and if they don't, how do you know?

In all honesty, I don't think it's a question of knowledge. Logic is an abstract process used to discern consistency. As a result, no axiom or principle exists outside of the human mind.

And, if some do, are we obligated in some way to adhere to them. If so, why, and if not, why not?

No one is obligated to adhere to any principle or set of principles. Indeed, the concept of obligation does not exist in external reality.

I may be wrong again, but I would have thought that by raising the notion of the principles that you've characterized that you must think some exist.

I think they exist only in the sense of the following statement: "For all integers, there exist some that are divisible by the integer 2."

Very platonic, this idea of universal principles.

Not really, I'd say. There is no truth in moral principles -- that is, I don't think the concept of "truth" even applies there. However, self-consistent and universally-applied morality seems more likely to persist. On the gripping hand, probability is also not the same as truth, except in an existential sense.

- Rob