Taken from: http://www.thechainlink.org/forum/topics/universalist-or
Many of the posts on the front page right now are teetering in the realm of ethical debate or outright dilemma. What these conversations have in common is the theme of moral conflict. In each of these posts there is one individual who regards oneself as having a moral justification for committing or judging an action. While other individuals believe the others are in error. How do we account for this inconsistency in varying perspectives?
OA → ¬ O¬ A
The above is an illustration of the principle of Deontic Consistency which can be applied to morality stating that a moral principle or action cannot be both morally correct or in error. Is that even true? It depends on ones belief in truth. If you are a moral univeralist then this premise probably rings true to you because you most likely believe that ethics can exist as moral truths. But if you are a skeptic or better yet an anti-essentialist then you have absolutely no problem with moral systems conflicting with each other because morality doesn't reflect truth.
So Chainlink... Where do you fall? Universalism or Anti-Essentialism? Or will this conversation take us into the depths of Post-Modernity? Or do you even care?