I think Lucas is a great ideas man . I wouldn ' t say that in relation with Indy 4 . But sure , the guy had his moments of genius . <| sep |> You can never justify your axioms . If you have axiom X , which you justify by explaining how it follows from beliefs Y , Z , and W , then you should remove X from your list of axioms and add Y , Z , and W . The reason you have axioms is because your beliefs ultimately have to rest on some foundation that cannot be justified using more basic beliefs . Of course , nothing prevents you from taking something as an axiom . When two people have different axioms , they will not only disagree but will have nothing to say to each other . Saying you take antidiscrimination as an axiom is a statement that you consider it beyond debate . I have no qualms saying this about rape and murder there can be no debate between myself and someone who thinks murder or rape are just fine but do you really feel comfortable saying that about antidiscrimination ? Well , perhaps you do . Even so , I think it is difficult though not impossible to build a coherent system of beliefs around antidiscrimination that captures commonlyheld intuitions . Suppose you take antidiscrimination as an axiom . What does that mean ? Are you allowed to discriminate based on eye color ? Based on attractiveness ? Are you not allowed to discriminate based on any immutable characteristic ? If discrimination is so bad , should the government ban discrimination is noncommercial areas of life ? Should it punish people who decline to date members of the opposite race ? Should it punish people who decline to date people with some immutable characteristic ? What about those who don ' t make friends with people of the opposite race ? Answering yes to all the questions would violate some common intuitions about government power . Answering no to some of them would , at the very least , require a very precisely stated axiom . But , of course , its your right to choose whatever axioms you like . In a way , I wish people were more upfront about what the axioms underlying their beliefs are as two people with different axioms can have nothing to say to each other beyond pointing out potentially unrealized consequences of each others ' axioms it would save us all some time in terms of internet arguments .