I have a fundamental set of morals from which I build my views. They aren't explicit, but my moral decisions all form a consistent web. Sometimes one of these moral-elements must be altered because of some inconsistency it presents, and sometimes my judgement of a situation must be altered because it was inconsistent with the foundation. But ultimately, consistency is what I aim for. I know this is super vague, and for that I apologize.
So far, this has worked for me 100% of the time. There have been some sticky situations, but even those have been worked out (i.e. - Answering the question, for example, "Is it ok for a father to leave if his [very] mentally unstable significant other tricked him into impregnating her?" This did not happen to me, but it was a question I had to answer none the less.)
Perhaps to my discredit according to some LWers: I often think trying to quantify morals with numbers has enough uncertainty associated with it that it is useless.
They aren't explicit, but my moral decisions all form a consistent web.
How do you know? (Or, if the answer is "I can just tell" or something: How do you know that your consistency is any better than anyone else's?)
For every controversial subject I've heard of, there are always numerous very smart experts on either side. So I'm curious how it is that rational non-experts come to believe one side or the other.
So, what are your meta-arguments for going with one side or the other for any given controversial subject on which you have an opinion?