*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[CoccoBill]

Chill, bro.

Fear not, I'm chill.

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.

I'm saying we just don't know.

Correct.

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.

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".

[Poopadoop]

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.

[CoccoBill]

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?

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.

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.

[Poopadoop]

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?

[CoccoBill]

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[boost]

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?

[CoccoBill]

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.

[boost]

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.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Fear not, I'm chill.

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.

Correct.

Wrong.

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

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?

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.

[CoccoBill]

Is any of that provable?

Certainly not by me.

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.

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".

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?

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.

[MadMojoMonkey]

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.

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.

You're proposition

I am not.

[...] 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?

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.

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.

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.

[CoccoBill]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

[MadMojoMonkey]

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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

Less interviews to do then!

Hah!

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)?

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.

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.