*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[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.