Mathematics used in ethics

@wolfgang59 said
I was proving that 2 lives matter more than one.
The values are of course subjective but my proof is still valid.

If a scale for making the judgment call more saved is better than fewer was all we were looking at okay. I think where such thinking can take us is what you saw here in a few posts I believe were said in jest, where 2 Nazi vs. 1 Jew, or Republicans vs Democrats and so on. With some, the ideology was the disabled or less than are drawing away resources from the strong and able, so kill them; it’s a just call. As I said how life is viewed is essential, if it is shear numbers alone we didn’t need to have human life in the equation, but putting human life there it becomes more than just numbers. If were always just numbers two healthy parents would never sacrifice their lives to save their only disabled child.

@kellyjay said
If were always just numbers two healthy parents would never sacrifice their lives to save their only disabled child.

In that case the parents are both giving a value to their own lives
and that of their child and determining that their child's life has
more value. To make that decision they must be subconsciously
assigning values to all the lives involved.

@wolfgang59 said
In that case the parents are both giving a value to their own lives
and that of their child and determining that their child's life has
more value. To make that decision they must be subconsciously
assigning values to all the lives involved.

We do that all the time, we value some, others, not too much. Our reasons will vary. We can lose value to some quirk of birth like color, nationality, sex, height, attractiveness, then moving on to behavior. So another question if we remove the numbers of how many verses how many! Do we have to have a reason to value human life? Is it that our lives have some intrinsic value or lack thereof without our personal preferences towards those things that might cause us like or dislike them, if so, why?

Incredibly important with some profound implications when you think what we can value above life on the scale of values.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Good thing WE'RE both here, then, to expose their lack of knowledge?!

[Why do "we" find ourselves so comfortable here, in that case...]

@whodey said
In the Bible the Great Flood is a story of killing all but a few in order to prevent mankind from destroying himself due to their wickedness, thus preventing the later births of billions/trillions of people.

Assuming the assumptions are correct, was this justified?

Man who answer question with question = jackass

(said Zen masta)

@sonship said
@BigDoggProblem

Are trolls allowed to drop off little one liners in your thread ?
You know? Like ...?

Because you have no life.

Well, dur hur, dur hur, whadda ya think, Jack?

Ya think this is a public forum and nobody owns a thread at'all? (except Russ and Al Gore)

I done' reckon' you right.

@secondson said

How is the life of one human being of less value ethically than that of ten?

Maybe the Ten are all serial killers, while the One is a patron saint.

@bigdoggproblem said
Maybe the Ten are all serial killers, while the One is a patron saint.

Speaking of serial killers, by the time a serial killer is past the first few murders we tend just to think of them as a serial killer, we might add a word like prolific, but don't judge them as any worse for killing thirty people than for killing ten. As far as how evil a serial killer is there's a sort of saturation, the moral judgement is replaced with a practical one of how dangerous they are. So, I think there is some merit to the statement: "Morality is not a simple matter of arithmetic.".

@deepthought said
Speaking of serial killers, by the time a serial killer is past the first few murders we tend just to think of them as a serial killer, we might add a word like prolific, but don't judge them as any worse for killing thirty people than for killing ten. As far as how evil a serial killer is there's a sort of saturation, the moral judgement is replaced with a practical one ...[text shortened]... So, I think there is some merit to the statement: "Morality is not a simple matter of arithmetic.".

oh, but then they are the worst ever, delta-V [victims]

@deepthought said
Speaking of serial killers, by the time a serial killer is past the first few murders we tend just to think of them as a serial killer, we might add a word like prolific, but don't judge them as any worse for killing thirty people than for killing ten. As far as how evil a serial killer is there's a sort of saturation, the moral judgement is replaced with a practical one ...[text shortened]... So, I think there is some merit to the statement: "Morality is not a simple matter of arithmetic.".

I don't think you can get to morality through arithmetic or logic.

@deepthought said
Speaking of serial killers, by the time a serial killer is past the first few murders we tend just to think of them as a serial killer, we might add a word like prolific, but don't judge them as any worse for killing thirty people than for killing ten. As far as how evil a serial killer is there's a sort of saturation, the moral judgement is replaced with a practical one ...[text shortened]... So, I think there is some merit to the statement: "Morality is not a simple matter of arithmetic.".

Wait, whoa. I very much judge someone worse for killing 30 people than ten.

Logic professors might refer to your statement as "begging the question".

@kellyjay said
I don't think you can get to morality through arithmetic or logic.

Why not?

@bigdoggproblem said
Why not?

There has to be something that has intrinsic value, with mathematics that has to be assigned, and it is no different than with logic. You cannot write code or law for values without setting up something to be protected and highly regarded, and that something, if it isn't agreeable with all will not be valued across the board. An example of caring for fellowmen I heard before (RZIM) was some people like their neighbors and will do good to them; others can like their neighbors because they eat them, you have a preference?

Mathematics and logic can only work with values assigned, not values that purely are because they are. Community values have to be commonly shared by all for cooperation within any community. The reality of things actually valued always makes their way to the top like; pleasure, greed, and power are purely self-centered. As one’s self becomes more valued, we put ourselves above others, and they can become more objects for our desires other than someone with intrinsic value. When gratifying one’s self becomes all-important a breakdown of community occurs, so we see all manner of crimes like rape, robbery, cheating, great discontentment arises as universal themes. A total disregard for authority is also another sign of the destruction of community, no respect for authority, because the community established them.

@kellyjay said
There has to be something that has intrinsic value, with mathematics that has to be assigned, and it is no different than with logic. You cannot write code or law for values without setting up something to be protected and highly regarded, and that something, if it isn't agreeable with all will not be valued across the board. An example of caring for fellowmen I heard before ...[text shortened]... n of the destruction of community, no respect for authority, because the community established them.

Well...that is not controversial.

Mathematics and logic are only a means from Point A to Point B - they do not specify where Point A[/i] is.

So, you have raised one objection, sure. I counter with Spock's saying from Star Trek II: "the needs of the many ... outweigh ... the needs of the few, or the one".

This is surely trivially obvious in the attempt of, say, an army soldier to dive on a grenade that threatens four other fellow soldiers, for example.

@bigdoggproblem said
Wait, whoa. I very much judge someone worse for killing 30 people than ten.

Logic professors might refer to your statement as "begging the question".

I do not think that I am I begging the question. How is Ted Bundy worse than Dennis Rader, bearing in mind the amount of suffering they caused their victims was pretty similar? In fact, since Rader wiped out a family and none of Bundy's known victims were children one can make a case that Rader was worse. I don't think it's a numbers game as far as the morality of their actions are concerned. Had Bundy been caught earlier and Rader later then would you reverse your judgement of them?