Sure. Whatever rocks your boat, just don't ask me to have any part of it. Moving logic isn't my kind of thing.
"moving logic" I said nothing about "moving logic". I was using an analogy. And "primitive values" are a reality in human thought.
There are many problems here and many causes of confusion. This is not one of them, or at least it wasn't until wrote a message about it.
I do think this is a problem.
From wikipedia:
"Monotonicity of entailment is a property of many logic systems that states that the hypotheses of any derived fact may be freely extended with additional assumptions. Any true statement in a logic with this property, will continue to be true even after adding any new axioms. Logics with this property may be called monotonic in order to differentiate them from non-monotonic logic."
But in moral situations, we are faced non-monotonic issues. For instance:
"Thou shalt not kill" --> "It is wrong to kill."
This is a universal statement. In monotonic logic, no matter what new statements are added to the argument following that premise, the first axiom "It is wrong to kill" remains true. But we think differently. Imagine if we add in another proposition, like "If we killed Hitler in 1939, we'd save the lives of 10 million or more people." Suddenly the initial statement is (for many people) no longer true. We have no self-evident truths off of which to base everything else, or very few, and very few of these have been totally proven to be such.
With the assertion that cutting out all Feeling functioning from debates regarding human affairs, one is faced with the fact that we can't reason monotonically and in our world Feeling is a way of dealing with non-monotonic situations on a case by case basis as new information comes in.
Why would non-monotonic logic involve the feeling function any more than monotonic logic? The fact that gaining new information can reduce the set of what is known in a non-monotonic logic system doesn't really have anything to do with judgments of value, which to my knowledge is the domain of the feeling function.
Because when we're dealing with real-world situations with moral values feeling kicks in. IMO it's easier to account for Feeling in a non-monotonic logic.
In abductive reasoning we seek the best possible answers based on our current state of knowledge, and this involves a non-monotonic logic. But this perfectly describes our current predicaments with, say, abortion. Lacking a rigorously sound argument to determine whether abortion is 'right' before 20 weeks or after, or right at all, we have to 'feel' our way to a best-possible answer.
Also, in non-monotonic logic, there exists a place for statements about what we do not know. In the case of real world issues, the Feeling function would be our only recourse for providing an explanation where no solid self-evident truths are available to sponsor the validity of our actions.
I brought this all up because it seems to me that this clarifies somewhat the place of Feeling in a rational debate about human affairs. If we rely on a monotonic logic, like the classical first-degree and subject-predicate logics, it's more difficult to rationally include Feelings as determiners of best-fit solutions.
But I'm not a PhD so I'm sure someone who's got more knowledge in this can refute me. I'll work on the point further.