@LukeAlmighty @Dicer The point is people try to appeal to the "consistency" of a moral framework, yet are obviously working backwards to shoehorn it.

Nobody starts with a framework (Bentham's utilitarianism, Kant's categorical imperitive, Rawls's veil of ignorance, libertarians' non-aggression principle etc.) and uses it to decide right from wrong. Instead they seem to have already decided what's right and wrong, then (after that) try to retroactively invent a framework which matches the view they already held.

This becomes apparent given the special exceptions they tend to make. "Murder is always wrong."
>What if it's an evil tyrant though?
"Okay, well, hang on, uhm, that's different because yada yada"
They all do this, inventing exceptions as soon as someone pokes at the margins. It's obviously just invented after the fact, not something consulted beforehand.