Editing Openai/692bfc7e-4f6c-800e-b8ed-119c786e0138 (section)

=== If we treat axioms as the starting point, then: ===
* Your axiom: dignity is absolute → argument is internally consistent and sound.
* Carol’s axiom: subjective experience and autonomy are absolute → argument is internally consistent, but less grounded in systemic reality.

✅ From a moral-philosophical standpoint grounded in human suffering and systemic realities, your argument is more robust. It explicitly recognizes limitations, historical evidence, and moral priorities while providing a coherent vision of the next step (Pluribus).

If you want, we can now try to formulate a “final, unassailable philosophical pro-Pluribus argument”, combining:
* dignity as axiom
* historical and systemic evidence
* moral priority of reducing suffering
* allowance for subjective experience and creativity within the system

This would be a full synthesis — practically and philosophically airtight.

Do you want to build that next?