What is your answer?
The rationality axiom says
{ 1 } - If A1, ..., An (n>1), either by themselves or conjoined with other axioms of formal ethics, form an inconsistent set, then you ought not to combine accepting A1, ..., and accepting An; -- and if A1, ..., An (n>1), either by themselves or conjoined with other axioms of formal ethics, entail B, then you ought to not to combine accepting A1, ..., accepting An, and not accepting B.
{ 2 } - One ought to think and live consistently with logic and the other axioms of formal ethics.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 2.
(No scoring on this one.)
The rationality axiom says
{ 1 } - If A1, ..., An (n>1), either by themselves or conjoined with other axioms of formal ethics, form an inconsistent set, then you ought not to combine accepting A1, ..., and accepting An; -- and if A1, ..., An (n>1), either by themselves or conjoined with other axioms of formal ethics, entail B, then you ought to not to combine accepting A1, ..., accepting An, and not accepting B.
{ 2 } - One ought to think and live consistently with logic and the other axioms of formal ethics.
Both formulations are correct. This formulation is more technically precise but less intuitive than the other.
<= back | menu | forward =>
(No scoring on this one.)
The rationality axiom says
{ 1 } - If A1, ..., An (n>1), either by themselves or conjoined with other axioms of formal ethics, form an inconsistent set, then you ought not to combine accepting A1, ..., and accepting An; -- and if A1, ..., An (n>1), either by themselves or conjoined with other axioms of formal ethics, entail B, then you ought to not to combine accepting A1, ..., accepting An, and not accepting B.
{ 2 } - One ought to think and live consistently with logic and the other axioms of formal ethics.
Both formulations are correct. This formulation is more intuitive but less technically precise than the other.
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end