This entire article is hilarious

[Chaerophon]

You misunderstood. I wasnt relating the slavery issue to the nature of logical constructs with in our beliefs. I suspect we have the same perspective on that 1 element and was attempting to dimiss it.
And back to your main point.

You are proposing that its legitimate to have beliefs that potentially conflict with each other. You are doing this on the basis all moral/principals being subjective.

I reject this veiw.

I believe that while base moral/principals are subjective all constructs we hold should be consistant. If you find a paradox you have a mistake somewhere.
This view is the basis of most modern thought.
[right][snapback]84721[/snapback][/right]

I don't disagree with you on this point. I don't believe that all morals/principles are subjective - at a societal level. I believe that consensus or mutual belief can, indeed, be a source of truth - provided that certain conditions are met in the process of arriving at such a consensus/societal perspective.

It is not legitimate, as an individual, to have beliefs that conflict with one another. An inability to recognize that fact is ignorance, plain and simple. That is beside the point.

The very fact that you and I could disagree, for perfectly logical reasons, over the nature of domestication and the fact that one of us could not necessarily convince the other through a force of some abstract 'true' logic that overwhelms that of the other, speaks to the fact that logic is a tool of discourse and not the absolute arbiter of truth. Coherence is, indeed, a legitimating factor in arguing moral points; and some consensus may be achieved on that basis. To take the case of abortion - what is it that legitimates one perspective over the other? Not the logic of either position - each possesses a perfectly logical argument that operates from fundamentally different premises, the truth or falsity of which is indeterminable in terms of abstract logic.