You can't "solve" this problem in the same sense that you cannot develop a universally consistent foundation for mathematics. Goedel is there preventing you from EVER proving that one set of axioms is better than another.
I again wrote a longer response but have shortened it because the author seems to have committed a rather grave error which is to assume that human moral 'intuition' is in any way consistent. There are heaps of evidence (cue the trolley car) that human moral judgements really should not be considered a guide for anything. The fact that we can capture the disasters of collective morality observed under various regime's during the 20th century ought to tell us that following those models as a universal foundation for human relations is a terrible idea.
Might also be worth paying a visit to eigennicolo and not adhere to such rigid systems.
Well I would like to read your "longer" response. But I thought I would just back you up on the Godel connection: the key to that theorem is also a self-referential-ness.
I would also throw in that financial systems in general suffer from this same problem: we assign value to items that get assigned value. Where is the objectivity? There is none.
It is quite ironic that I found your comment at the bottom of the HN comment queue, and it is also by far the most penetrating, IMNSOO.
I again wrote a longer response but have shortened it because the author seems to have committed a rather grave error which is to assume that human moral 'intuition' is in any way consistent. There are heaps of evidence (cue the trolley car) that human moral judgements really should not be considered a guide for anything. The fact that we can capture the disasters of collective morality observed under various regime's during the 20th century ought to tell us that following those models as a universal foundation for human relations is a terrible idea.
Might also be worth paying a visit to eigennicolo and not adhere to such rigid systems.