What are some later examples of a strictly "geometric", i.e. axiomatic philosophical system like The Ethics...

The point of the post was to provide an ethical axiom without referring to a qualitative claim.

You're throwing out a term like "moral behavior" without recognizing the implications. Either your use of the phrase implies that moral behavior is that which ought to be performed, which your statement does not support, or it's an incomplete axiom and requires a supplemental claim to equate the moral with that which ought to be. I lean towards the first option.

Nope. Your throwing an idea about what moral means into the axiom, saying that moral should mean "ought to be done". Now, you can call the axiom incomplete, or rather, you can disagree with the axiom, but its still an axiom.

If your ethical/moral axiom uses the term "moral" without equating it with what ought to be, you are in the realm of personal definitions, not ethics or morality.
I don't think it's any coincidence that your definition crumbles as a useful idea until a moment of scrutiny, either

Retard

>until
*under

>scrutiny
I see what you did there.

An axiom is a starting point. It could be, that in conjunction with another axiom, moral behavior is identical to behavior that ought to be done. I'm not developing an effective axiomatization of ethics here, I'm pointing out that an axiom and a claim are basically the same thing, even if the axiom is ethical and the claim is qualitative.

>There are legitimate critiques of axiomatic systems, like their incompleteness and their inability to prove their own consistency.

>What is the embedded power of arithmetic

You enjoy it because you're subhuman.

I've actually never heard the phrase "embedded power of arithmetic," I'm curious to know what you mean by it.

>axiom
>derived from a claim
There's your problem you fucking idiot

>QUALITATIVE

What the fuck are you talking about mate? A qualitative claim is still a fucking claim

Yes
But it is not a claim that can be empirically proven/logically deduced without doubt
And an "axiom" that can't be proven and can be rationally disagreed with by an opposing viewpoint is always going to be rooted, in truth, in the illogical (in the literal sense of the word) biases and priorities of the he who believes it, which are determined by personality and subjective experience and are therefor not axiomatic.
OP said he wanted a purely axiomatic ethical philosophy
I said it will always be nested in a non-axiomatic framework. That was my argument against the notion.

By the way, before I get accused of scientism, I fully believe in the validity and importance of unfalsifiable beliefs. I'm no logical positivist

you cannot prove an axiom... wtf are u on about

Some you can, some you can't.

Why the fuck are you going on about? A system is axiomatic if and only if every single statement that is true within a given system is either an axiom or a statement that is derivable from its axioms with inference rules (except incomplete systems). Any ethical philosophy which satisfies this condition is purely axiomatic, no matter what.

I still don't exactly know what the fuck you mean by a "non-axiomatic framework" with respect to ethical philosophy or any philosophy at all. Are you talking about frameworks which seem intuitively true, like how it just seems bad to steal? Because even those are axiomatic.
The only "axioms" which can be disproved or proved (however the fuck that works) are those which attempt to say something about something whose existence predates the conception of these axioms OR those which produce inconsistencies. I'm not even sure if you can even call propositions of the former kind axioms.

Axioms about ethics can be "proved" if and only if there is no harmony between them and the definition of ethic(s), because the only basis of ethics without its axioms are its definitions; it is not something that has any material manifestation.
The only proof in ethics, and any purely abstract system, involves axioms, definitions, and theorems (and rules of inference, of course). Your talk of proving/disproving axioms (outside of their axiomatic systems) in the field of ethics is just nonsense.

>Axioms about ethics can be "proved"
*disproved

>There are legitimate critiques of axiomatic systems, like their incompleteness and their inability to prove their own consistency.
GODEL'S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREMS ONLY APPLY TO ARITHMETIC YOU FAGGOT. WE KNOW THAT FIRST ORDER LOGIC IS BOTH COMPLETE AND CONSISTENT REEEEE

Well, they only apply to systems which are both capable of modeling arithmetic and are effectively (recursively) enumerable.

Believe it or not most philosophical systems assume enough that they're capable of doing arithmetic.

>WE KNOW THAT FIRST ORDER LOGIC IS BOTH COMPLETE AND CONSISTENT REEEEE
Nope. Try again.
>consistency is good becuz i sed so
Logic sucking its own cock. Hilarious.

>using logic to make fun of logic
m8

You're truly hopeless if you don't see the hole in your argument

Haha, there you go appealing to logic and consistency again, you FOOLS.

There's literally nothing wrong with that if logic doesn't exist

>muh lawwwwwjikkkkkkk

This topic is evidence that brain-dead positivists and STEM cucks ruined philosophy.

The Scholastics:
Thomas Aquinas
Duns Scotus
William of Ockham
Etc.

Modern scholastics focus is on Neo-Thomism