|
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Me, neither. It's not the nature of this category of questions to have provable statements.
If it was, then morality would be a science, and we would have a testable system to solve moral dilemmas.
I don't think defining "good" is impossible either, though we would probably end up with several, all maybe requiring their own models.
Think science as in economics or sociology, not as in physics. I don't see why not. Is it easy? Hell no. Can we "solve" it now? No. Is there something so inherently incalculable about human behavior and feelings that it cannot be modeled? I don't think so. Our brains achieve it, I don't see why computers/algorithms at some point could not.
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Is there any conceivable way to objectively define what is "good?"
The answer is no. Or at best, none of the smartest ethicists who have ever lived have been able to even scratch the surface of that one.
I'm with the latter. I already gave one (which is obviously not my original idea) which sucks balls, but is -1/12 better than not having one.
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I feel you're edging over the line of morality and into the realm of jurisprudence.
The question of what is right or what is best or what is good is one thing.
Questions about "what justification is there for the greater society to override an individual's freedom?" seem a step beyond where we've been, but a logical direction to move in.
You're absolutely right. Jurisprudence would be just one key application for such a framework, probably the most relevant one.
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
However, to not say they're just as correct is the real nonsense, IMO. Just because your opinion is popular doesn't mean it's right. Murderers have different opinions about what is right than the rest of us... does that make them wrong because they're in the minority?
I don't think any of it should be based on personal opinions, but on objective societal outcomes. We've just been drawn into those, because all discussed examples have hinged on them. I think we can all agree that if option A creates $100 wealth for 1 person, and option B creates $1000 for 1000 people, we don't need to do an in-depth survey about people's feelings about it. We'd need to model all outcomes based on their economic, societal, health, environmental etc factors, and weigh them independently. That'd be a MASSIVE ordeal, and would create centuries worth of debate and fine-tuning, but I don't see any physical barriers to doing it.
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'm not convinced that we're any good at all at collectively determining what's best overall. In fact, I think you have to actively ignore a wealth of data to draw that conclusion. Humans mistreat other humans every day all the time. That's ubiquitously popular. Does that make it morally right?
These are exactly the reason we need such a framework, and why I think moral relativism is bullshit. On individual level we're lolbad at morals, even if we have pure motives.
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
No. We do know. These organic life forms are far too tiny - too chemically simple - to have a nervous system or a complex set of responses that could give rise to emergent consciousness.
They're just too tiny - far too few dynamic parts, molecules, to give rise to complex behavior.
Stuff many orders of magnitude bigger doesn't even have enough going on to give rise to emotional responses, like insects.
Less interviews to do then!
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I answered as though you'd said "humans" instead of "all organic life on Earth," but then clarified - I don't think you were saying that viruses and bacteria deserve moral rights, but you DID say that, so I didn't want to leave your actual statement unresponded to.
Yes, my understanding is that viruses and bacteria are far too simple to have any kinds of experiences, viruses arguably aren't even alive. I didn't say they should have moral rights, just didn't say they don't to not get sidetracked, and well we don't really know that 100% I suppose. If it turns out they have feelings, I'll promise to be kinder to them.
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
OK. So you're speculating that the missing factor from having a provable moral statement is a definitive understanding of the value of human life, but you're not sure exactly what the ramifications of that definition would be.
Well, sort of. Understanding the value of human life is just one aspect of it needed for certain things. Most of it would be assigning values to more everyday stuff, and use them to implement more sensible policies, like being able to assign fair and proportional penalties for different crimes.
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Lol.. but what do you mean by "better?" Better for whom?
Eeeeverybody, although, individualism vs collectivism shouldn't be either-or, they should be weighed against each other. How? No clue, but it should be done.
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'm not saying that there is no point to having laws and jurisprudence, BTW. We're kind of a step below that stuff. I lose my footing fast and easy when we get up to that level. Personally, I don't see that society has a moral right to impose a morality on any individual. However, what is moral for a society is clearly at odds with what is moral for individuals. So we have bigger problems. Even if we could define what's best for societies, it will not be what's best for all members of the society. If we could define what's best for all individuals, that would not be best for the greater society. So there's definitely a gray area of compromise where we have to balance in which cases which system should rule.
Yeah the role of government and defining what it should or shouldn't do is another discussion, but if we could soft-scientifically define the legislation, I think it'd be a massive step forward from the current arbitrary, corrupt and outdated processes.
|