You, a human, might object that you don’t like this so it can’t be universally true, yet a Babyeater would object that you not eating babies is an outrageous norm violation that will lead to terrible outcomes.
But in that case, the babyeater and I would argue over the specifics of the causality of violating the babyeater’s maxim.
In deciding between conflicting maxims, you can:
contextualize each maxim’s application.
If the contexts overlap, then elicit the universalizable consequences of the maxims. Otherwise, stop.
If each side agrees about the consequences, then compare the values each side uses to judge the consequences. Otherwise, stop.
In the end, I have found that either:
the maxims applied in different contexts.
at least one maxim is understood by the opposing side to have different consequences than the other side understands.
the opposing sides had judged the same consequences with different values.
By comparing maxims on the basis of context, consequences, and values, you can get from some disagreement over maxims to any potential difference in values. The point is that values are not necessarily where the disagreement occurs.
Thanks for the post! You wrote,
But in that case, the babyeater and I would argue over the specifics of the causality of violating the babyeater’s maxim.
In deciding between conflicting maxims, you can:
contextualize each maxim’s application.
If the contexts overlap, then elicit the universalizable consequences of the maxims. Otherwise, stop.
If each side agrees about the consequences, then compare the values each side uses to judge the consequences. Otherwise, stop.
In the end, I have found that either:
the maxims applied in different contexts.
at least one maxim is understood by the opposing side to have different consequences than the other side understands.
the opposing sides had judged the same consequences with different values.
By comparing maxims on the basis of context, consequences, and values, you can get from some disagreement over maxims to any potential difference in values. The point is that values are not necessarily where the disagreement occurs.