Off the top of my head, strong candidates for that set are:
“#Suffering is bad”
That’s the only thing that I’m certain is bad. My foundation for #ethics.
“#Mathematics is true”
Math is the only #epistemology that I trust. And math is behind everything.
“I matter. Others matter, too.”
This guards against the polar opposites of egotism and immolation — both mistaken.
[…]
Other propositions, while true and important, are derivative, reducible — not axiomatic:
“#Wellbeing matters”
…insofar as there’s (some degree of) consciousness/sentience. Because only sentient entities can suffer. And suffering is what matters.
eg, relieving a horse of a toothache is more important than preventing the annihilation of a sterile galaxy. There’s no “wellbeing” in a corner of the universe where there are no conscious creatures, no matter how vast that chunk of space-time be.
(If putting “destruction of an entire galaxy” lower in your list of worries than “someone somewhere breaks his little finger” sounds alarming to you, it’s only because it is extremely improbable that we could know for sure that the galaxy is entirely devoid of sentience, is incapable of developing or hosting consciousness ever in the future, and is not and will not provide shelter or resources to any creature. Very little confidence in that, therefore too much risk in prioritising a toothache over the fate of a billion stars in practice.)
“#Pleasure is good”
This is true only because (or to the extent that) pleasure is incompatible with suffering, or that pleasure means that whatever the level of suffering it is being offset by a greater amount of the opposite stuff.
“#Freedom matters”
Very often more freedom means individuals accomplish more of their stated preferences, and very often those preferences point towards less suffering for them (and sometimes for others, too).
Freedom is (usually) good because it (usually) reduces suffering. But it’s not a given.
(Needless to say, this is not a justification for despots or kidnappers, who do not reduce but increase suffering.)
@tripu Would it not make sense to take a closer look at what freedom means?
From the top of my head, i would list:
Some of those are at odds with each other. If i do not cooperate in a discussion, the other does not have this last kind of freedom, but if i am forced to, i am stopped from whatever else i wanted to do.
@tripu I completely agree in principle, but would call what you provided examples, not anecdotal evidence.
To go one step further, i would say while we made a big step forward by replacing corporal punishment with curtailing of freedom of movement, there are still issues.
For one, curtailing of freedom would let us compensate unfairly punished better by giving them money compared to a thief which had his hand hacked off never regaining even anything even close.
Another item would be in how far we actually protect prisoners - heard good things about Finland there.
To get back to the underlying issue, i would say that the actual protection prisoners have from suffering (by wardens or other prisoners) determines if we actually made progress there:
If more harm is inflicted to prisoners than offenders of the relevant category of crime become repeat offenders if not punished, we did not gain anything. And if we get those numbers and can agree, this would be an example where i would actually see the use of math (even if only temporarily until the problem with lacking protection of prisoners is solved).
Come to think of it, would you call yourself a utilitarian?