Other people believing in different ethical frameworks only matters if you think other people can't be wrong. I fully acknowledge that just about everybody says that they aren't evil. Yet there are still plenty of people doing evil things.
That leaves three possibilities: Either people are lying about thinking their actions are good (I like to think this is rare, as I have a generally positive view of people), I'm wrong about what is good and what is evil, or they're wrong about what is good and what is evil.
I like to think that the fact that my beliefs are based on an axiomatic framework of suffering bad, free will good, and innocence by default makes them more likely to be correct than a knee-jerk disgust response of "gay people are icky", but maybe I'm biased.
Regardless, between the latter two possibilities, in terms of praxis there is little difference. When two people hold fundamentally contradictory axiomatic beliefs, I fully expect both the fight to protect them and theirs. I don't fault them for choosing to fight. I fault them for the beliefs they're fighting for.
That leaves three possibilities: Either people are lying about thinking their actions are good (I like to think this is rare, as I have a generally positive view of people), I'm wrong about what is good and what is evil, or they're wrong about what is good and what is evil.
I like to think that the fact that my beliefs are based on an axiomatic framework of suffering bad, free will good, and innocence by default makes them more likely to be correct than a knee-jerk disgust response of "gay people are icky", but maybe I'm biased.
Regardless, between the latter two possibilities, in terms of praxis there is little difference. When two people hold fundamentally contradictory axiomatic beliefs, I fully expect both the fight to protect them and theirs. I don't fault them for choosing to fight. I fault them for the beliefs they're fighting for.