Final answer:
Booth suggests we might not be able to agree about ethical principles due to the complex nature of philosophical concepts and differences in perspectives.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to Booth in the realm of philosophy, there are concepts that may not be easily agreed upon due to their inherent complexity and the variations in perspectives among philosophers. Issues such as ethical principles and conceptual boundaries often present challenges when seeking universal agreement. This difficulty stems from the distinction between empirical facts, which can potentially be verified through observation and experimentation, and values or ethical principles, which are not as easily subject to empirical validation. The debate over whether scientific laws and mathematical truths are discovered or created by humans adds another layer of complexity to consensus in philosophy. Philosophers like Kant postulate that innate categories of thought are necessary for understanding concepts that arise from our experience, such as causation, substance, self, identity, space, and time.
Moreover, differing philosophical schools, such as moral realists and moral skeptics, contend about whether there is a clear fact-value distinction. The recognition that scientific reasoning can involve value-laden decisions, as argued by philosophers like Hilary Putnam, also challenges the perception that science consistently produces objective facts separate from values like goodness or kindness.