*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

Quote:

---

According to people who do have an idea, they need a lot more testing.

---

Well at least Boris isn't taking this kind of path. He appears to be listening to those who are advising him. He didn't want to close the schools and force us to stay home, but he did because someone close to him told him that it was necessary. Boris doesn't seem to have the ego that Trump has. Maybe he's just fooling me though, I mean I don't trust him. With that said, I'm very much glad Corbyn is not in charge during this pandemic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I have no idea if Trump's comments about those drugs are credible.

---

If I'm being completely honest I don't even think Trump deserves any blame for that. Trump deserves blame for a lot of things, but if some cunt decides drinking cleaning products is what he needs right now, that's really just on him.

I'm thinking bigger picture: a second Trump term would be a disaster for the entire world. Economically and ecologically... he's been better than Obama on foreign wars, but his rhetoric doesn't inspire confidence in what's to come. People will have to die either way. I'd rather it be by some cartoonish reverse shotgun contraption than it reaching across the border like it did with Bush Jr.

Not prepared to give BJ too much credit, apart from not being as bad as Trump.

Plan A was to let the virus rip through the country so we could build 'herd immunity.'

Plan B is to do what others countries are doing and try to flatten the curve.

We won't know for sure if we moved to plan B soon enough or not until we see our cases peak and start to fall.

Quote:

---

Plan A was to let the virus rip through the country so we could build 'herd immunity.'


Plan B is to do what others countries are doing and try to flatten the curve.

---

Why did he change his mind? Did he cave in to public pressure? Or did he take advice from someone? That's what matters. If it's the former, then he's weak. If it's the latter, that's a sign of strength.

The "herd immunity" thing has become a buzzword for people who wish to have a dig at him. When we talk about "herd immunity", it's not total bollocks. If 80% are immune to a virus, then the remaining 20% cannot cause a pandemic. That's the logic behind it, and I would assume that it's based on rigorous science. It just can't spread fast enough, it ceases to be exponential.

Whether such immunity happens against this virus is another matter; if it were flu then it would be a near certainty, but it's not flu. If I were calling the shots, I'd be taking the advice of my chief medical advisor on this matter, who in turn would be drawing on the expertise of respected virusologists (yes I made that word up).

I don't think he pulled that phrase out of his arse. I think it's based on what he was being told at the time by his advisors.

Virologist is the correct term.

I'm no fan of Boris, but I have to say, I'd much rather he be in charge right now than Corbyn.

Cross posting from the other thread.

Quote:

---

Yep-- also herd immunity comes about in two different ways:

1 we develop a vaccine and immunize all who can safely have the vaccine administered

2 lots and lots of people die, and the survivors develop immunity, thereby leaving the remaining population immune.

I believe these two things get conflated when people talk about Covid19. We don't have a vaccine yet, so championing herd immunity in this case is to call for the deaths of potentially tens of millions of people.

---

Also, MMM, your stance on that video of those two spazzes is baffling.

As Poop pointed out, legality and morality do not have a total overlap.

Also, the one filming could be lashing out from a totally selfish place (she wanted TP and didn't get any), but the way she is acting out further's the greater good.

As for TP being an essential good, I don't think it's a tragedy to draw a hard line with TP on the outside of "essential goods", but if we allow for any sort of nuance, it certainly is more essential than birthday cards. There certainly is demand for it, and when it is hoarded it will cause all sorts of havoc. A clear cut case is that instead of visiting one store when people venture out for supplies, they'll visit 10. Then visit 10 more the next day because they didn't find TP in the first 10. Then they'll start crowding the entrance of the stores leading up to opening, hoping to grab some from a freshly stocked self. All of which will contribute to the spread of the virus.

Back to nuance: Admittedly there's a blurry line between hoarding and being well supplied, helping to minimize trips out and mitigating the spread of the virus. If she had two or even five cases of TP, I probably would have thought the woman filming was overreacting. But she cleared out the store and had something like 20 cases. She also could have been supplying an institution in need (such as a nursing home) which had no luck with their typical distributor, but she didn't offer up any of this info when she could have, so we can only assume she's hoarding, or just super socially awkward.

Both are spazzes, but I 100% want the lady behind the camera in my society if I had to pick one.

Bog roll is something I'd consider essential, just not as essential as some things. I'd put in in the second group of "essential goods", along with tampons. Food, water, medicine and shelter are the "group one" essentials.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Bog roll is something I'd consider essential, just not as essential as some things. I'd put in in the second group of "essential goods", along with tampons. Food, water, medicine and shelter are the "group one" essentials.

---

Yeah, this all seems reasonable, and a much better approach than the binary. It's kinda surprising that (if) the people tasked with planning for this shit don't have a tiered cheat sheet like you're proposing.

The world has never needed an expert sniper with an aggressive brain tumour more than it does now.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1242537995103846400

"Wouldn't it be great to have all the churches full on Easter Sunday?"

^^^
I guarantee you that every day in the WH for the next few weeks, if not months, Trump will be arguing with his experts as they try to talk him out of all sorts of stupid ideas like that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Also, MMM, your stance on that video of those two spazzes is baffling.

As Poop pointed out, legality and morality do not have a total overlap.

Also, the one filming could be lashing out from a totally selfish place (she wanted TP and didn't get any), but the way she is acting out further's the greater good.

---

I'm saying they're both acting badly.

What greater good? The woman is actively loading her purchase into her truck.
What was accomplished aside from making a bunch of internet droolers white knight over the TP lady?

No one's being shamed into not hoarding because of that video. Hoarding is a perfectly normal human response to scarcity. The news told us that TP is scarce and people went and reacted in a predictable way.

There's no moral right, here, IMO.

The TP lady was within her civil rights to purchase goods with her money.
The camera lady is within her civil rights to film in public. (Though what she's doing is bordering on harassment, IMO.)

Whether or not it was moral is beside the point. Who TF is the camera lady to jump on a soap box and take the moral high ground over this? Who's following her around with a camera and calling her out? Bet it's not a long wait before you see her do something the internet can froth over how immoral it was.

mojo is right about one thing, which is that it is a predictable panic reflex for people to stockpile. If you find an article older than a year old predicting what would happen if a pandemic took hold, people stockpiling toilet paper would be on the list.

This reminds me of japanese porn: I'm somehow aroused and creeped out at the same time.

https://twitter.com/IvankaTrump/stat...58065857458177

This is fucking gold.

(btw, Is there some way to just post the video from a tweet instead of the link?)

https://twitter.com/JLCauvin/status/1242515702688485376

https://twitter.com/i/status/1242515702688485376

Quote:

---

(btw, Is there some way to just post the video from a tweet instead of the link?)

---

It appears not

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

https://twitter.com/i/status/1242515702688485376

---

Love it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Love it.

---

It's the same link poop posted, I was trying to embed the video but failed.

It's maybe the best thing I've seen in a year. Tremendous stuff.

I bet some people view it as great insult to Trump and others think it's endearing fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I'm saying they're both acting badly.

What greater good? The woman is actively loading her purchase into her truck.
What was accomplished aside from making a bunch of internet droolers white knight over the TP lady?

No one's being shamed into not hoarding because of that video. Hoarding is a perfectly normal human response to scarcity. The news told us that TP is scarce and people went and reacted in a predictable way.

There's no moral right, here, IMO.

The TP lady was within her civil rights to purchase goods with her money.
The camera lady is within her civil rights to film in public. (Though what she's doing is bordering on harassment, IMO.)

Whether or not it was moral is beside the point. Who TF is the camera lady to jump on a soap box and take the moral high ground over this? Who's following her around with a camera and calling her out? Bet it's not a long wait before you see her do something the internet can froth over how immoral it was.

---

Is there no moral right here, or is morality besides the point? You haven't established that there's no moral high ground here, you've just stated it.

The interest of the greater good is that unnecessary hoarding does not occur. I outlined the costs of hoarding on society.

Nothing is accomplished in this instance, but shame plays a crucial role in societies. If you're putting your money on more likely/just as likely, I'll take less likely to continue hoarding all day and print money. But that's not the big win, the big win is that those viewing this who had no opinion are going to be less likely to hoard.

On the flip side, being a busybody is look down upon-- but it's always dependent on circumstances. If you attempt to shame someone when it's not called for, you'll be labeled a busybody, you'll be told to mind your own business, and you'll be the one being shamed. That's because a society doesn't have the energy to police every minor transgression.

Now where is the line? I'm not sure, but as I said before, a few cases, and I probably am thinking "what's this busy body's problem?" Yet I think ~20 cases is egregious. I understand that we may not agree on where the line is, but if you think there is no line, that public shaming doesn't serve a function in society, I think you're simply confused.

p.s. making the semantic shift from "legal" to "civil right" doesn't change anything. There are plenty of shameful and amoral things I can legally do-- things that I should and would be shamed for, and society would be better for my being shamed.

I'm not trying to define morality because it cannot be defined, IMO. Morality is a personal and cultural grey area, and the collective disagreement among all ethicists seems ubiquitous. What is moral in one ethical system is immoral in another, and there's no way to evaluate the goodness of one system against another aside from invoking their own internal claims of what is moral in the first place.

If you want to say either person is acting morally or immorally, you have to state the fundamental assumptions inherent in your moral code and then we're not talking about the specifics of your judgement, but whether the code is good for us.

You seem to be latching on to Utilitarianism and saying that the greatest good for the greatest number of people is to not hoard, but to evenly distribute the scarce resource.
Which is fine and all, and I'm not opposed to Utilitarianism on the whole, but in this case, it's promoting socialism. You're asserting that you or I or the camera lady have the right to decide what's best for the hoarder lady, and to evaluate the amount of good that is done by allowing her to hoard compared to the predicted good that happens when she doesn't hoard.
The thing is, you don't know the answers to any of the questions about "how good is A vs. B" You only have an emotional response to side with one lady or the other. Then the mental gymnastics to convince yourself you're right.

What is the moral right for the hoarder is to protect the security of herself and her kin.
What is the moral right for the camera lady is to try to shame the hoarder as it reduces her own perceived security.
(TP security may be hogwash, but it's obv. a real perceived concern to both people in the video.)

Both people have a claim to the moral high ground, and there's nothing deeper to the discussion.


My point is that it's not up to you or me or anyone what is best for the hoarder lady. That's her call. I certainly don't want hoarder lady telling me what's best for me, so I don't see any righteousness in the rest of us telling her what is best for her.
We don't even know her.

***
Even if her "need" is purely speculative - i.e. even if her whole ambition was to speculate that TP is cheap today, but could be expensive tomorrow and that's a good business opportunity to buy low and sell high - even if that, that's just capitalism at work. She's not morally wrong for seeing a business opportunity and striking while the iron's hot, so to speak. That's just business.

Does your analysis change if you believe that hoarder lady is actually profiteering lady?

I.e., that she's collecting all the scarce goods just so she can make a buck by marking them up and selling them out of her garage (cf. hand sanitiser dude)?

'Cause I think that's a more plausible interpretation of her motivation than that she believes she needs 50 years worth of toiler paper herself, and this is her only chance to acquire it.

Is there something more than my final paragraph above that answers your question?

If the answer isn't contained in that, could you rephrase your question, please?

Oh didn't see that, sorry.

So basically profiteering is just good capitalism in your eyes.

So if someone decides to hoard ventilators as well, you're ok with that? And if it isn't immoral, then why did they just enact a law against it?

Yeah I'm not really buying into moral relativism. Obviously if you're describing any current moral codes, written or unwritten, they will mostly be personal, cultural, in many ways arbitrary and always changing. That doesn't mean they're all "right", unless you define them to de facto have to be. I would also like to think a thinking man such as yourself wouldn't sink so low as to define something as bad because "it's socialism". Results should matter, not some arbitrary labels.

Day 13 of self-quarantine. Starting to get slightly bored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Day 13 of self-quarantine. Starting to get slightly bored.

---

A fun game to play is to try to imagine if every little ache, pain or cough is a sign you've got a dose.

I've had something the last day or so that I even hesitate to call a malaise. Just feeling kind of tired and achy, but nothing really cold-ish like a runny nose or cough. I'm so far sticking to the hypothesis that it's just stress. If by some chance it is CV, it's doing a very poor job of trying to kill me, which somehow feels re-assuring.

Ah yeah probably not the dose.

Quote:

---

health officials say the most common symptoms of coronavirus infection usually include:

A dry cough
A high temperature
Shortness of breath

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

So basically profiteering is just good capitalism in your eyes.

---

What do you mean by "profiteering?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

So if someone decides to hoard ventilators as well, you're ok with that?

---

No. I don't even see how these are comparable situations. Are you suggesting that the life and death implications of the lady hoarding TP are similar / on par with the consequences of someone hoarding ventilators?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

And if it isn't immoral, then why did they just enact a law against it?

---

IDK. Probably "they" stand to gain something from passing said law.

laws != morals

Sometimes, laws guide morals. Sometimes, morals guide laws. Often, they're unrelated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Yeah I'm not really buying into moral relativism.

---

Chill, bro. No one's selling you anything.

I'm not attempting to persuade anyone of anything.

Besides, I wouldn't say I'm a moral relativist. More of a moral agnostic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Obviously if you're describing any current moral codes, written or unwritten, they will mostly be personal, cultural, in many ways arbitrary and always changing. That doesn't mean they're all "right", unless you define them to de facto have to be.

---

Can you name any single moral or ethical framework (past or current) that doesn't start in its first, opening statements by blindly asserting that something is "right" or "good" and then drawing out all the conclusions of that statement? Implying that the entire system is "right" if the opening statement is "right."

Can you conceive of any moral or ethical foundation that is provable?

If no past or current or conceivable future code of morals can be "right" outside of its own conceit, can we ever know if we have the "right" one?
I'm not saying anyone's wrong. I'm not saying there is no moral right. I'm saying we just don't know. Can't know.
So let's all be nice to each other in the mean time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

I would also like to think a thinking man such as yourself wouldn't sink so low as to define something as bad because "it's socialism". Results should matter, not some arbitrary labels.

---

I never!
:shock:

I'd like to think you'd recall me saying the exact same things over and over again. That there is no best social or political or economic system. Each excels at different scales and applications, and trying to pigeon-hole everything into any one system is definitely never best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Day 13 of self-quarantine. Starting to get slightly bored.

---

Yeah. I think we're all a little stir-crazy.

Quote:

---

it's not up to you or me or anyone what is best for the hoarder lady.

---

Quote:

---

even if her whole ambition was to speculate that TP... that's just capitalism at work.

---

MMM, you make a case for moral relativism, but then you sneak in moral judgements.

Quote:

---

The thing is, you don't know the answers to any of the questions about "how good is A vs. B" You only have an emotional response to side with one lady or the other.

---

I disagree. In a utilitarian framework-- you may not be able to quantify things precisely, and of course mistakes will be made, but that's due to a lack of tools. I don't claim that we can settle any of this for certain, but we can definitely orient ourselves in the correct direction. Either you're a nihilist (you're not), or you're placing your bet on the improbable position that there's no moral difference between these two actions.

Quote:

---

I'm not opposed to Utilitarianism on the whole, but in this case, it's promoting socialism.

---

As poop pointed out, this is oddly lazy.

What is your stance on war time rationing in WWII? How about your thoughts on much of the economy being shifted to a planned economy during the same time?

Quote:

---

You seem to be latching on to Utilitarianism and saying that the greatest good for the greatest number of people is to not hoard, but to evenly distribute the scarce resource.

---

There's a couple of issues here. First, it's not a scarce resource, there's plenty of TP. It's a logistics issue. TP is a low cost, low profit commodity that also happens to be bulky. Therefore it doesn't make sense to have large quantities of it at the retail end of the supply chain, as the $/sqft to warehouse it is dramatically higher. Do to this quirk in the supply chain, if there's a run on essential(ish) supplies, consumers will be given a false sense of scarcity.

Second, my stance is not that things should be evenly distributed, but that they should be allocated to their best use. That may mean even distribution, but it may mean simply each person should make a judgement call on what they personally need. If you end up towards the hoarding end of the spectrum, you risk being called out. If too many people end up on the hoarding end of the spectrum, then we are forced to some sort of enforced even distribution. Right now we have the mildest stage of that, retailers limiting quantities/purchase.

I think you're all reading me say one thing, then extrapolating it out like we're talking about someone hoarding water.

We're talking about a lady buying a non-essential good, and another lady getting all in the first lady's face about literally nothing at all.

We're not talking about someone hoarding respirators, or other life-saving goods.

We're talking about 2 people behaving badly, and I'm simply saying that there is no moral high-ground for the camera lady to stand on.

This is a mole-hill at best, and the white-knighting surrounding it like as though we're talking about war rationing is absurd hyperbole.

"allocated to their best use"

According to who? According to the hoarder lady? Or according to the camera woman?
They disagree about how to best allocate the resource.

Who are you to stand over them in judgement? By what authority do you claim that right?
Why should your voice be any louder or more significant than the 2 voices already in disagreement at the outset?
What do you add other than your personal opinion?

If we're just talking personal opinions, then why do you expect / want mine and yours to be the same?

Also, I should point out (I think I did in the split thread), I'm not anti-hoarding. I think there is a point (we're far from it) where we're in a true state of scarcity that can't be compensated for (think, shit really hits the fan, and we end up in failed state.) In this case there's a moral prerogative to hoard, because now it's a zero sum game and you're going to be playing against some less moral, immoral, and amoral actors.

btw: even if we never agree, MMM, this is a fun exercise, you're certainly making me consider things I hadn't fully explored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

"allocated to their best use"

According to who? According to the hoarder lady? Or according to the camera woman?
They disagree about how to best allocate the resource.

Who are you to stand over them in judgement? By what authority do you claim that right?
Why should your voice be any louder or more significant than the 2 voices already in disagreement at the outset?
What do you add other than your personal opinion?

If we're just talking personal opinions, then why do you expect / want mine and yours to be the same?

---

We're social creatures, we're talking about the functioning of society. It is by all of our authority. By what right can you tell me not to walk around in public naked, the way I was born, my natural state? Well, you (if not you, the royal you) do tell me that, and enforce that norm-- first through shame, then through force. Some norms we codify into law, some we leave unwritten and discourage outside of the legal system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I think you're all reading me say one thing, then extrapolating it out like we're talking about someone hoarding water.

We're talking about a lady buying a non-essential good, and another lady getting all in the first lady's face about literally nothing at all.

We're not talking about someone hoarding respirators, or other life-saving goods.

We're talking about 2 people behaving badly, and I'm simply saying that there is no moral high-ground for the camera lady to stand on.

This is a mole-hill at best, and the white-knighting surrounding it like as though we're talking about war rationing is absurd hyperbole.

---

Again, I don't think either person is behaving badly universally. Morality is contextual. And it's perfectly normal for people to misread the context and therefore act immoral. As I've said, camera lady is a nosy busy body if you shift a few variables, and naively out of step with the looming disaster if you shift a few more. Each person is rolling the dice with their action.

I don't think any of these people are bad, or evil, or any thing like that. I don't even know what that means tbh. What I do think is that they're performing social functions-- when they're well used, our reaction rewards them, and when they're misused, our reaction discourages such use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

What do you mean by "profiteering?"

---

Precisely what the dictionary means.

Quote:

---

a person who seeks or exacts exorbitant profits, especially through the sale of scarce or rationed goods

---

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/profiteering?s=t

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Chill, bro.

---

Fear not, I'm chill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Can you name any single moral or ethical framework (past or current) that doesn't start in its first, opening statements by blindly asserting that something is "right" or "good" and then drawing out all the conclusions of that statement? Implying that the entire system is "right" if the opening statement is "right."

Can you conceive of any moral or ethical foundation that is provable?

---

From those I've seen, utilitarianism comes the closest. We'd of course would been to start with defining what the framework is supposed to describe, such as something like "maximizing well-being and minimizing suffering of all organic life on earth". Or something, I don't know. If I knew I'd be much more famous. The point is I don't see a reason why it couldn't be done, in theory. And if it can be done in theory, it suggests there exists a provable calculable definition for right and wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I'm saying we just don't know.

---

Correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Can't know.

---

Wrong. We "only" need to define the worth of well-being and suffering on a scale with enough parameters for it to workable. And obviously, I don't know how to do that, and most likely neither can anyone else right now. Mostly because of the outrage of even attempting it would cause, with people clamoring how life is priceless. Well, it isn't, and the public and insurance sectors among others have routinely been using them in decision-making for ages. There's nothing mysterious or unknowable about them, we just lack the will and courage to work them out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I'd like to think you'd recall me saying the exact same things over and over again. That there is no best social or political or economic system. Each excels at different scales and applications, and trying to pigeon-hole everything into any one system is definitely never best.

---

More than assuming that's what you thought I was more just commenting on your phrasing:

"Which is fine and all, and I'm not opposed to Utilitarianism on the whole, but in this case, it's promoting socialism."

That's a weak argument, and the rest of it seemed to amount to "we can't know".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I think you're all reading me say one thing, then extrapolating it out like we're talking about someone hoarding water.

We're talking about a lady buying a non-essential good, and another lady getting all in the first lady's face about literally nothing at all.

We're not talking about someone hoarding respirators, or other life-saving goods.

We're talking about 2 people behaving badly, and I'm simply saying that there is no moral high-ground for the camera lady to stand on.

This is a mole-hill at best, and the white-knighting surrounding it like as though we're talking about war rationing is absurd hyperbole.

---

Again, empty TP shelves means people will visit multiple stores unnecessarily, thereby working against flattening the curve. There is a cost to this. I don't think I've seen you interact with this idea. What gives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Mostly because of the outrage of even attempting it would cause, with people clamoring how life is priceless. Well, it isn't, and the public and insurance sectors among others have routinely been using them in decision-making for ages. There's nothing mysterious or unknowable about them, we just lack the will and courage to work them out.

---

Here's where I'd disagree. The social effects of death on one's loved ones' happiness can't be quantified. Sure, you can say they take two weeks off work and that costs the economy X dollars, but you can't actually put a figure on their suffering.

When people say 'life is priceless', that's how I interpret it at least. Not that a single human life is worth all the wealth in the world, just that we can't turn its value into any number, financial or otherwise. Within a utilitarian perspective, it's pretty much impossible to quantify certain outcomes in terms of overall good.

And when you guys argue insurance companies or other businesses already do these equations, well that's because they don't give a shit about the people who are dying. If you made it the CEO's or chief economist's wife who was going to get it, they'd put down their calculators pretty fast imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Here's where I'd disagree. The social effects of death on one's loved ones' happiness can't be quantified. Sure, you can say they take two weeks off work and that costs the economy X dollars, but you can't actually put a figure on their suffering.

---

Wouldn't there be a range of reactions with confidence intervals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Within a utilitarian perspective, it's pretty much impossible to quantify certain outcomes in terms of overall good.

---

Pretty much or absolutely? I'm not arguing it's easy or feasible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

And when you guys argue insurance companies or other businesses already do these equations, well that's because they don't give a shit about the people who are dying. If you made it the CEO's or chief economist's wife who was going to get it, they'd put down their calculators pretty fast imo.

---

Absolutely, but doesn't change the facts.

Arguing with engineers when you're a theorist sucks.

MMM, which extreme is better, everyone suffering as much as possible, or everyone suffering as little as possible? Both maximum suffering and agnosticism are unworkable answers, as these answers, like nihilism, are betrayed by one's actions. I understand that the details get murky (that's where the fun is), but that's the basis for utilitarianism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Wouldn't there be a range of reactions with confidence intervals?

---

Sure, you can assume there's a range of reactions between 1= completely devastated and 10 = being happy they're gone I guess.

But your data aren't on any sensible linear scale that could be analysed. And even if they were, how do you convert them to a dollar value?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Sure, you can assume there's a range of reactions between 1= completely devastated and 10 = being happy they're gone I guess.

But your data aren't on any sensible linear scale that could be analysed. And even if they were, how do you convert them to a dollar value?

---

It is not about whether I can, it is about why wouldn't it be possible in theory. Our reactions, especially on a societal scale should be pretty predictable.

You're trying to find if there are any use cases where our current understanding wouldn't enable us to accurately price every possible eventuality. Sure, there's plenty, far more than workable scenarios. That doesn't mean though that there wouldn't already be many practical scenarios where it could be applied, and imo nothing to suggest any of them are somehow unknowable and indescribable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

It is not about whether I can, it is about why wouldn't it be possible in theory. Our reactions, especially on a societal scale should be pretty predictable.

---

To me, this is like looking for an equation to show how many meters a kilogram is worth. They're just not translatable.

The only way life and money become translatable is if you take the human element out of the life's value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Sure, you can assume there's a range of reactions between 1= completely devastated and 10 = being happy they're gone I guess.

But your data aren't on any sensible linear scale that could be analysed. And even if they were, how do you convert them to a dollar value?

---

Of course it's impossible to have a all encompassing model. That model would require more energy than is present in the universe. What we can do is do our best to model these things, and in doing so we can better approach the best answers to tough questions.

Honestly, I think a big problem with economics when applied to this sort of thing is that those attracted to the field probably skew towards the sociopathic(not using this as a pejorative) end of the spectrum. And so more empathetic points of view aren't modeled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

To me, this is like looking for an equation to show how many meters a kilogram is worth. They're just not translatable.

The only way life and money become translatable is if you take the human element out of the life's value.

---

We need to allocate resources. Surely you understand triage. Typically that's done in a much more ad hoc way, which is better than not at all, but don't you think it would be better if, for example, combat medics had triage training based on the work of some egg heads whose goal is to save as many lives as possible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

We need to allocate resources. Surely you understand triage. Typically that's done in a much more ad hoc way, which is better than not at all, but don't you think it would be better if, for example, combat medics had triage training based on the work of some egg heads whose goal is to save as many lives as possible?

---

In triage, you try to tend to the most urgent cases first. Afaik, it doesn't go much deeper than that. I suppose if they figure there's only a 10% chance this guy will live even if we give him our last three pints of blood, versus give it to three other guys who each have a 50% chance of living if they get one pint each, yeah ldo you do the latter. They probably do similar kinds of calculations in hospitals as a matter of routine - short on antibiotics? well fuck let's use it to save the mother of three in her twenties instead of the 80 year old guy.

What I'm talking about is related to the current situation - we're not crawling around trying to find enough to eat because of social distancing, we're short on toilet paper. Even if there is ultimately a global depression resulting from measures to combat an epidemic, hardly any of us will die from it. So it's not a choice of sacrificing a few million lives now to save several million later. Its a choice between saving lives versus giving people a higher standard of living (still probably better than their parents' had, for that matter), after having them watch loved ones die.

If we didn't take measures to manage a pandemic, I think the population would be much more pissed than they might be now (I mean the population in general, not the CEO of Boeing).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

To me, this is like looking for an equation to show how many meters a kilogram is worth. They're just not translatable.

---

Most things look like that to me before I understand them. Would you agree for example, that the range of reactions of people losing a loved one is more severe then them losing $10? If you do, would you also agree, that for some, not all, the range of reactions might be more severe for losing everything they have? If you do, we have a tangible piece of information about how some people value life. We can keep adding examples (a lot smarter and more efficient ones) and keep getting more data that can be applied to solve problems, step by step getting to closer and closer approximations of The Truth[tm].

We don't need to know whether Trump's life is worth $4.50 or $4.55 to use this information to do all sorts of things, and obviously not just death but all human interactions, feelings, achievements, whatever. You may "feel" like it's wrong, have an emotional response against doing any of that, but I don't see any logical reason why it's categorically impossible.

Let's try it this way. Say there was a genie who could make anyone die, and they were doing an experiment to see how much monetary value people gave to a human life. What they do is approach someone and say here's what will happen. I'm going to name someone somewhere in the world. You might know them, you might not. Then, I'm gonna start an auction on their life. I'll start at (say) $10 and keep going up until you think that makes it worthwhile to you, where you think that's the lowest amount you're willing to accept to have them die."

And the first name they give you is Wally Wong in Beijing, someone you don't know at all. That's the first trial.

Let's say he repeats this experiment around the world, always where the first person is a complete stranger to the participant. He gets the data and finds out that for a stranger to die, the average person only needs some small amount (say $1000) to be ok with it.

Then he starts the second trial. The genie says to you "Mary Killarny who lives on the next street." You still don't know her, but she does live close to you, so somehow her life seems to be worth more. And after he asks everyone in the world the same question, there's some average figure that's somewhat higher than the first one.

Great, he thinks. The closer they are to someone the more they value that person's life.

Then he starts thinking about friends and family. So he starts by naming some distant acquaintance of yours, he names your second cousin, who you've met a few times in your life but aren't in regular touch with, he names one of your old schoolteachers, or whatever. The average value goes up.

He keeps going along and eventually he gets to your closest relatives.

So, he asks about your child. How much to let little Bobby die?

You tell him to go fuck himself. He says no, that doesn't fit into my analysis, I need a number. You tell him to go fuck himself again. You won't trade little Bobby for infinite riches. That's how much you love your kid.

So he has various figures for all sorts of people you don't know, and distant acquaintances or relatives, etc., but he can't get a number for people who are close to them because 99.99% of people tell him to go fuck himself for even posing the question. How is he then going to figure out the average value of a human life? Where does he plug 'go fuck yourself' into the equation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

You're trying to find if there are any use cases where our current understanding wouldn't enable us to accurately price every possible eventuality.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Say there was a genie who could make anyone die...

---

Well yeah, anyway, if that were the case, he would know where the average threshold for monetary compensation would be, and could continue instead auctioning people for people, or groups of people. Maybe after that to other things such as world peace, cure for cancer, pink unicorns, free steak & bj etc., all along gaining more knowledge to punch into his equations.

I think you missed the point, or I didn't make it clearly enough.

In the case where someone values another's life so much they wouldn't trade it for an infinite amount of money, there's no mathematical model that can be devised that captures that, because there's no universe in which an infinite amount of wealth exists. Just like there's no universe in which we can convert meters to kilograms.

Yes, there may be circumstances in which we can equate money values to lives, but as long as there are any where we can't, the whole notion that somehow there is some universal equation that exists that we just haven't been smart enough to figure out yet is mistaken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

btw: even if we never agree, MMM, this is a fun exercise, you're certainly making me consider things I hadn't fully explored.

---

:highfive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

We're social creatures, we're talking about the functioning of society. It is by all of our authority. By what right can you tell me not to walk around in public naked, the way I was born, my natural state? Well, you (if not you, the royal you) do tell me that, and enforce that norm-- first through shame, then through force. Some norms we codify into law, some we leave unwritten and discourage outside of the legal system.

---

I'm not sure if you're asking me
A) for the history of public decency laws,
B) whether it's moral that we have public decency laws, or
C) whether public decency should be a moral topic at all.

FWIW, public indecency hurts no one and IMO, it's immoral to have something that is non-threatening be illegal.
FWIW, if the reality is that people are so scared of having sexy thoughts in public because they saw someone's sexy bits, and that causes more trouble than it solves, then whatever. If you tell me that I have to cover my sexy bits for the public good, what can I say? They're powerful sexy bits, and I agree that the greater public probably could not contain themselves if I was showing them off.

Seriously, though. Who cares if it's moral? You have more opportunities if you wear pants in public. If that's because of mass hysteria, then so what? It's simple enough to put pants on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Again, I don't think either person is behaving badly universally. Morality is contextual. And it's perfectly normal for people to misread the context and therefore act immoral. As I've said, camera lady is a nosy busy body if you shift a few variables, and naively out of step with the looming disaster if you shift a few more. Each person is rolling the dice with their action.

---

I really agree. I'm not saying either is a threat to anyone.
They're just both generally annoying in that way that people tend to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

I don't think any of these people are bad, or evil, or any thing like that. I don't even know what that means tbh. What I do think is that they're performing social functions-- when they're well used, our reaction rewards them, and when they're misused, our reaction discourages such use.

---

Evil is choosing to ignore what you know is best, and doing what you know is not best.
Oh, and moderation keeps us all sane, so ... y'know... sometimes what's best is a little self-rebellion.
Just, if you know something is bad, then... really try to not do it... unless you have to... OK?
EZ PZ, right?


Sure, but they're just people. The emergent nature of their presence in a greater society is not understood at all by me. So I can't really analyze anything on those terms.

I know you're right.. but that stuff happens at or to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Precisely what the dictionary means.



https://www.dictionary.com/browse/profiteering?s=t

---

Then no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Fear not, I'm chill.

---

https://media3.giphy.com/media/3o7TK...XhVS/giphy.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

From those I've seen, utilitarianism comes the closest. We'd of course would been to start with defining what the framework is supposed to describe, such as something like "maximizing well-being and minimizing suffering of all organic life on earth". Or something, I don't know. If I knew I'd be much more famous. The point is I don't see a reason why it couldn't be done, in theory. And if it can be done in theory, it suggests there exists a provable calculable definition for right and wrong.

---

Provable was the operative word in my question.

Is any of that provable?

Don't get me wrong, when it comes to ethical systems, utilitarianism is very appealing to me.
BUT
How can you prove that what's good for humans is what's "Good?"
Seems a pretty lucky coincidence that the moral right has what's best for humans as a fundamental premise, no?

All organic life on Earth..?
Then COVID-19 has same the moral rights as humans.
Bacteria have moral rights.

I'm not saying you're wrong. Just making sure that I understand what you're saying.

What do I know? Maybe the only moral good humans have served is to be the host for bacteria and viruses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Correct.

---

https://media.giphy.com/media/l2Jhpb...8yyI/giphy.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Wrong.

---

Awww, c'mon. You said you were chill, man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

We "only" need to define the worth of well-being and suffering on a scale with enough parameters for it to workable. And obviously, I don't know how to do that, and most likely neither can anyone else right now. Mostly because of the outrage of even attempting it would cause, with people clamoring how life is priceless. Well, it isn't, and the public and insurance sectors among others have routinely been using them in decision-making for ages. There's nothing mysterious or unknowable about them, we just lack the will and courage to work them out.

---

I don't see why this is a relevant first step to a provable moral statement, but maybe you're right.

How would having this change anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

More than assuming that's what you thought I was more just commenting on your phrasing:

"Which is fine and all, and I'm not opposed to Utilitarianism on the whole, but in this case, it's promoting socialism."

That's a weak argument, and the rest of it seemed to amount to "we can't know".

---

You're right. It was a weak argument.

Really I was saying:
You're promoting a system whereby individuals don't get to decide for themselves what is good for them, but that some other agency gets to dictate what is good for each of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Again, empty TP shelves means people will visit multiple stores unnecessarily, thereby working against flattening the curve. There is a cost to this. I don't think I've seen you interact with this idea. What gives?

---

That's a weak argument, and I'm not taking the bait.

You could argue that by hoarding now, she wont have to leave later when social distancing is really needed.
Then we're back to the assertion that it's not her moral right to act in her best interests as she sees fit.
Again... it's TP.

If you want to change the topic to ventilators or something with immediate life and death consequences, then my opinions change.
So long as we're talking about some people hoarding TP, which is in fact in plentiful supply, then I really don't care what people do.

Publicly shaming someone over such trivialities is probably not what's best for society as a whole, IMO.
That ends us living in a world where it's illegal to have a no pants party, and no one wants that world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

MMM, which extreme is better, everyone suffering as much as possible, or everyone suffering as little as possible? Both maximum suffering and agnosticism are unworkable answers, as these answers, like nihilism, are betrayed by one's actions. I understand that the details get murky (that's where the fun is), but that's the basis for utilitarianism.

---

Did you answer your own question, there?

I'm a fan of utilitarianism. Gets me right in the feels.
Still not provably more good than anything else.
It's just really good at appealing to the feels.

Aristotle's Philosophy of the Mean is pretty appealing, too... until you read what he actually wrote, then you're all... OK..? back away slowly.
Exact opposite for Buddhism. You read what the Buddha said and you're all.. yeah... It's not about God, and it's not about what other people want me to believe... it's about me and what I already know is Good. Yeah.
Then you see Buddhism on the street today and you're like... you know that guy you have statues of everywhere? You know that his whole message was that it's not about him, right? OK...? and back away slowly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I think you missed the point, or I didn't make it clearly enough.

---

No I didn't miss it, I'm just saying it's in most cases irrelevant or can be worked around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Yes, there may be circumstances in which we can equate money values to lives, but as long as there are any where we can't, the whole notion that somehow there is some universal equation that exists that we just haven't been smart enough to figure out yet is mistaken.

---

No one said equation, and no one even said we need to assign dollar values on everything. We don't have a unified theory or physics, but we still get pretty good mileage out of physics regardless. We don't need an equation, we need a data model, and that's for this to be usable, applicable, and that wasn't even a requirement in all of this, just that it's in theory possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Is any of that provable?

---

Certainly not by me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

How can you prove that what's good for humans is what's "Good?"
Seems a pretty lucky coincidence that the moral right has what's best for humans as a fundamental premise, no?

---

We first need to define "good" before we do anything else with it. You're proposition is that we can't ever know what's good because it's subjective, that everyone should be able to judge for themselves and no one else should have any say. To me that's debatable, I'm sure you agree many people act against their own interests, and the interests of everyone out of ignorance, selfishness, pressure. To say they're just as "correct" with their definition of good is nonsense. For the majority of things we can objectively determine what's best overall, within a defined set of criteria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

All organic life on Earth..?
Then COVID-19 has same the moral rights as humans.
Bacteria have moral rights.

---

Do bacteria and viruses have the same emotional and physical responses to well-being and suffering as humans? We don't know (yet) but if they did, yes they should have the same "rights".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

How would having this change anything?

---

Apart from how we see things and how we should determine enacted social policies, I dunno, maybe it wouldn't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Really I was saying:
You're promoting a system whereby individuals don't get to decide for themselves what is good for them, but that some other agency gets to dictate what is good for each of us.

---

Well we already have that. I'm just suggesting it could be better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

We don't need an equation, we need a data model, and that's for this to be usable, applicable, and that wasn't even a requirement in all of this, just that it's in theory possible.

---

We already have these equations used by insurance companies, etc. My point is that those equations become useless when the lives in question are loved ones.

Is that descriptive of all problems within this framework, or an exception to the rule?

As long as your framework only includes people no-one cares about personally, then your good.

Let's be generous and say every person has 50 loved ones. That is, 50 people where they'd rather personally kill everyone else than any of them. That'd mean the framework works for 99.9999993% of the cases for everyone.

You're saying they have to kill everyone else but their loved ones. So you're equating lives with other lives, not with money.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Certainly not by me.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

We first need to define "good" before we do anything else with it.

---

Exactly. You hit the nail square on the head.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

You're proposition

---

I am not.
:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

[...] is that we can't ever know what's good because it's subjective, that everyone should be able to judge for themselves and no one else should have any say. To me that's debatable, I'm sure you agree many people act against their own interests, and the interests of everyone out of ignorance, selfishness, pressure. To say they're just as "correct" with their definition of good is nonsense. For the majority of things we can objectively determine what's best overall, within a defined set of criteria.

---

Re bold: no, that's not my position. We're knees deep in this discussion, all having our say.

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.

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?

Is that all it takes to prop up your definition of what's correct? Popularity?
Was Naziism correct at the time... because it was popular, at least in some small region of the world?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Do bacteria and viruses have the same emotional and physical responses to well-being and suffering as humans? We don't know (yet) but if they did, yes they should have the same "rights".

---

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.

Probably poopadoop could say this in a more convincing manner... or tell me I've got it wrong.

Look, you're the one who said,
"We'd of course would been to start with defining what the framework is supposed to describe, such as something like 'maximizing well-being and minimizing suffering of all organic life on earth'"

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Apart from how we see things and how we should determine enacted social policies, I dunno, maybe it wouldn't?

---

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.

I really respect that kind of thinking. It states an open question and implies an avenue of exploration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Well we already have that. I'm just suggesting it could be better.

---

Lol.. but what do you mean by "better?" Better for whom?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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.

Quote:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Would you agree for example, that the range of reactions of people losing a loved one is more severe then them losing $10? If you do, would you also agree, that for some, not all, the range of reactions might be more severe for losing everything they have? If you do, we have a tangible piece of information about how some people value life. We can keep adding examples (a lot smarter and more efficient ones) and keep getting more data that can be applied to solve problems, step by step getting to closer and closer approximations of The Truth[tm].

---

...is this not trying to find an equation where life = dollars x something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

...is this not trying to find an equation where life = dollars x something?

---

Not really, it's trying to demonstrate it could be done in principle, since you asked. If the value in some cases equals infinity, that's perfectly fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

If the value in some cases equals infinity, the whole model breaks.

---

fyp


Anyways, I don't want to belabor the point. We both have our own views on it, and so whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

I don't think defining "good" is impossible either, though we would probably end up with several, all maybe requiring their own models.

---

Ding ding ding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Think science as in economics or sociology, not as in physics.

---

I mean science as in, "The category of questions which have measurable answers."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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.

---

I do think so. I don't think our brains achieve it.
I think there's a wealth of evidence that suggest a majority of our conscious thought is us justifying decisions we've already made subconsciously. I.e. we decide what we decide subconsciously, and then AFTERWARD we consciously apply a moral framework which justifies that decision.
I.e. we actively constantly lie to ourselves about our moral capacity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

I'm with the latter. I already gave one (which is obviously not my original idea) which sucks balls,

---

But not really. You prevaricated and hand-waved and said it'll take several different definitions of good.
Which is exactly where we are now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

but is -1/12 better than not having one.

---

:lol:
Ooooh La La!
You wanna make out, later?
Or now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

You're absolutely right. Jurisprudence would be just one key application for such a framework, probably the most relevant one.

---

Which I can't even wrap my head around. Call it a personal flaw. I can't get past individual freedom, even when we're talking murderers. I get the strong feels to say, get them away from me, I don't want to get murdered... or anyone else to get murdered, either, I guess. But that's not a moral foundation. Popularity is not a moral foundation.
Utilitarianism feels like a good place to turn, but again... it's all based on feelings... not objective... fickle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

I don't think any of it should be based on personal opinions, but on objective societal outcomes.

---

But it's your opinion that we shouldn't base this on opinions.
You see the endless circular thinking we have when trying to find an ethical foundation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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.

---

These are the reasons I think morality is a made-up idea to control other people to act according to our opinions.

"You know what will make the world better? If you're all a lot more like me."
-every ethicist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Less interviews to do then!

---

Hah!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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.

---

But you're presupposing that it is moral to assign penalties for crimes.
When a child disobeys, is it about a penalty, or about a lesson?

When you were a child, did penalties motivate you? Or did compassion and leadership (through good parenting)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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.

---

There's no way to appeal to both the criminals and the victims of criminal behavior.
They have different value systems, and that is a fundamentally human set of circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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.

---

I'd vote unicorns for Congress, if only a unicorn would run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

That's a weak argument, and I'm not taking the bait.

You could argue that by hoarding now, she wont have to leave later when social distancing is really needed.
Then we're back to the assertion that it's not her moral right to act in her best interests as she sees fit.
Again... it's TP.

If you want to change the topic to ventilators or something with immediate life and death consequences, then my opinions change.
So long as we're talking about some people hoarding TP, which is in fact in plentiful supply, then I really don't care what people do.

Publicly shaming someone over such trivialities is probably not what's best for society as a whole, IMO.
That ends us living in a world where it's illegal to have a no pants party, and no one wants that world.

---

Nope. 20 families could have sheltered in place for weeks with that amount of TP. That amount of TP simply doesn't match up with any timeframe given related to the virus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Did you answer your own question, there?

---

Yep :D

Anyways, I think you have a hang up on individual freedoms. We currently have a balance between individualism and collectivism, and generally everyone is happy with it. Yet when the idea that the balance may be wrongly favoring individualism too much, everyone acts as if the proposed increase in collectivism is evil, ignoring that they are perfectly happy with the collectivism currently in place.

Another way to look at it is to take individual freedoms to the extreme. Game it out and watch the world crumble. As with most everything, it's a balancing act. It plays out as individualism vs collectivism, but the real game is finding the sweet spot on the spectrum.

Drinking, so can't be arsed to wall-o-text, sorry. :/

Subconscious activity is still activity in the brain, right? And I don't see a (big) problem with there possibly having to be several definitions of good, as long as they can be modeled. It's all still solvable. None of what we've been discussing have been originally excavated from dino bones, all of these are human constructs. Good and bad, right and wrong, morality, life, emotions, money. Clearly any study into those wouldn't be physics or chemistry, but rather some mathematical models, statistics and psychology.

And I didn't say crimes need to be penalized, but whether they do or not shouldn't be based on a whim, but models and data.

https://twitter.com/TheBeaverton/sta...13763372232707

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

That's a weak argument, and I'm not taking the bait.

You could argue that by hoarding now, she wont have to leave later when social distancing is really needed.
Then we're back to the assertion that it's not her moral right to act in her best interests as she sees fit.
Again... it's TP.

---

It's not a weak argument, but I think you haven't actually grasped it. There is enough TP to go around, there just isn't enough at the point of retail for everyone to hoard it. It's a quirk of the supply chain. So each time a shopper strikes out and goes to another store in search, that's an added trip. She's potentially causing 20 added trips, by avoiding maybe two or three trips tops.

Further, social distancing is really needed yesterday, not tomorrow or the next day. The earlier you social distance, the flatter the curve. At a certain point (hopefully far from where we are), social distancing actually doesn't work at all, because there are too many infected, and therefore too many vectors of transmission. At that point, our minimum level of social activity is enough for the virus to rip through the population.

Quote:

---

If you want to change the topic to ventilators or something with immediate life and death consequences, then my opinions change.
So long as we're talking about some people hoarding TP, which is in fact in plentiful supply, then I really don't care what people do.

---

It's not in plentiful supply at the point of sale. So when it's hoarded, well, see above. Also, "immediate life and death consequences" is a very strange stipulation. Knowingly being infected and walking around coughing on people doesn't have immediate life and death consequences. The difference here is that she could be completely ignorant of the mechanics, and so shaming helps to dissuade her and/or others from committing to this anti social behavior.

Quote:

---

Publicly shaming someone over such trivialities is probably not what's best for society as a whole, IMO.
That ends us living in a world where it's illegal to have a no pants party, and no one wants that world.

---

It's not trivial. It's causing increased spread of the virus. Spring breakers should be shamed too. There's nothing trivial about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

It's not trivial. It's causing increased spread of the virus.

---

Yeah I don't get the argument that it's trivial. Like Boost said, if she causes a bunch of other people to go around searching for tp, she's contributing to the spread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Spring breakers should be shamed too.

---

Yup. I've seen people on twitter comparing their strategies for making it look like they're doing 'essential' shopping, like by adding some staple foods to their basket full of snacks and mix for booze. Is that really worth risking everyone's lives for? Have some fucking self-control, cunts.

I say immediate consequences because all you have against the hoarding of TP is hand-waving and speculation.
If all you have to go on is your guesswork and what "sounds good," then that's great and all.

It's just that, for me, the justification of infringing on someone's rights needs to meet a higher standard than that.

So wtf is going on with Biden right now anyways? Why is he going all Hillary by avoiding a camera at all costs? Did the Dems not learn their lesson last time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I say immediate consequences because all you have against the hoarding of TP is hand-waving and speculation.
If all you have to go on is your guesswork and what "sounds good," then that's great and all.

It's just that, for me, the justification of infringing on someone's rights needs to meet a higher standard than that.

---

I think you can get workable models from much more guessy guesswork, but fine, this seems like a reasonable enough place to shrug this one off.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...ecurity-160901

https://twitter.com/lenkiefer/status...449784832?s=20

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

https://twitter.com/lenkiefer/status...449784832?s=20

---

Tremendous numbers! Huge!

But don't worry, this guy is on the job:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCugZtgMbdA

He looks like he's about to cry.


"The president wanted to make sure we had the best people doing the best jobs...."

Gee, where have we heard that before?


"...demands that all the recommendations we make be based on data..."

Which president are we talking about here?

Trump is using the federal stockpile to reward 'good' behaviour by the governors who suck up to him. What a little, little man he is.

How old is Jared? He sounds like he's 16.

https://twitter.com/JustinAHorwitz/s...20593387798534

He has like 10 people around him all day trying to home school him on this shit and he still doesn't get it:

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1...355328512?s=20

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...coronavirus-c/

Only the best people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IQYuGfvbrU

Meanwhile, looks like Fauci is on his way out.

Lists credentials of everyone... Has nothing to say about Ivanka or Jared.

...and not a single economist or public health expert. But hey, as long as you have Jarvanka, why do you need competent people?

6.00: "Lab in Wuhan was point of concern for State Dept. two years ago." But two months ago, Trump was saying he trusted the WHO and Xi totally.

7.45: "This is COVID-19, not COVID-1. You'd think the WHO would be on top of that."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y66L4xeuj-I

Meanwhile in MAGA country, people fight for their right to spread COVID 19

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EVut-scU...png&name=small

Well, this should knock some sense into those protesters!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EV0Ns8SU...jpg&name=small

The people have spoken.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1251564861257113602

What's the over-under on days until Fauci gets fired?

Next question: What's the odds he's replaced by Jared and/or Ivanka?