*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[CoccoBill]

Ask someone if they'd accept some amount of money to have one random person in the world die. It may be a loved one, it may not. If you can get everyone to accept a dollar figure for the x/world population chance they'll lose a loved one, you've got a starting point for your economic life <--> money converter model. Otherwise, I think youre stuck.

Why the insistence on assigning dollar figures? No one is after a life-money converter, we're talking about a moral framework. There are practical situations where there's a need to assign some value on life, but like you said we're already doing it now. That's a specific rather fringe use case, not a foundation to everything.

[Poopadoop]

Why the insistence on assigning dollar figures? No one is after a life-money converter, we're talking about a moral framework. There are practical situations where there's a need to assign some value on life, but like you said we're already doing it now. That's a specific rather fringe use case, not a foundation to everything.

I thought your aim was to determine all the variables and have a formula you could plug them into to get a dollar figure per life out of.

If you actually want to devise a moral framework, then I've lost the thread of the discussion, sorry.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I thought your aim was to determine all the variables and have a formula you could plug them into to get a dollar figure per life out of.

That's what I thought he was saying, too.

[CoccoBill]

I thought your aim was to determine all the variables and have a formula you could plug them into to get a dollar figure per life out of.

If you actually want to devise a moral framework, then I've lost the thread of the discussion, sorry.

That's what I thought he was saying, too.

Dudes wtf, goddamit. I said, or at least meant, that there's no reason why morals couldn't be defined objectively. I'm bored but not that bored.