Thanks for your reply. Was it not attributed by you to Ayn Rand in your post #395?
Suppose you oberve something about reality or some aspect of it, and identify it. It might occur to you that the observed aspect of reality seems almost fundamental, essential, or primary. Is it an axiom?
Let us first establish that we are discussing moral principles which are not visible as physical reality is physical and observable. You can only observe behavior of people, but it is incorrect to say that behavior = moral truth. Just because a person is behaving in a certain manner, that does not mean that person "ought" to behave that way.
An "moral axiom" is defined by a person, that makes it morally relative if it contradicts true moral absolutes that come only from God. For example, Ayn Rand did not believe adultery or sex outside of marriage was wrong - correct? Therefore, her axioms about sexual morality (if she had any) contradicted God's, therefore Ayn was a moral relativist when it came to sex.
Here is how to find out. Is it possible to deny it without incorporating the idea itself in the denial thus contradicting the denial in the process of denying it. If the concept itself must be incorporated or assumed in the process of the denial, then it cannot be logically denied, it is axiomatic.
By this definition, any axiom from anyone can't be denied.
One other note about axioms. Axioms are always primaries, which means, they cannot be further reduced to more fundamental concepts. They are not derivative concepts.
Axioms are to be The bottom line is that moral truths cannot just hang in mid-air - they must have a source. The are either from man or God - no other options available. If they originate from man or woman (Ayn Rand), then they are morally relative to man. Only moral principles from God are capable of being universal. Man does not have the moral authority to make his moral principles absolute because man is finite and his sphere is quite limited, and carry no real moral force. There are no real consequences for going against manmade axioms, but there are consequences, both practical and eternal, for going against God's.
Yes, but then as now, I was using my own wording. Here argument means exactly the same as mine, but is much longer, so mine is meant to give only the essential meaning. I do believe any died-in-the-wool objectivist would disagree with my explication.
Let us first establish that we are discussing moral principles ...
We can certainly get back to that subject if you like, but my post was specifically to your post (that's where it started) 801, where you said, "Judging from the AR quote you posted on axioms, Ayn Rand's definition of axiom is no different than the definition of absolute - are these synonyms? The dictionary defines axiom ...."
I was explaining what objectivists mean by axioms which is quite different from what you and others have implied.
The problem is with all this discussion, no one bothers with fundamental principles. For example, what do you think a value is? What is good? What is bad?
I think we have gone as far as we can with this. Some agreement in the philosophy of ethics, and before that, epistemology is required, I think. We are not going to agree on these, I believe, because you are a mystic and I reject all mysticism.
Hank