> So it seems to me you were clearly expressing an idea of what a metric is, in rejecting the need for metrics, that you now attribute to me and say it's the wr

> So it seems to me you were clearly expressing an idea of what a metric is, in rejecting the need for metrics, that you now attribute to me and say it's the wrong definition. No. You said a bunch of things, that to me are almost entirely unrelated, and I responded to several of them. One of them was about determining the consequences of actions and I responded to that because it was part of your argument about having personal values. Before any of that, you wrote: "How can one "fill the void" without measuring anything? Personal values may vary, but I can't see the concept of determining the consequences of your actions as being an optional one of them." The implication is that if you reject metrics you still have to measure and determine the consequences of your actions, so metrics are unavoidable. If metrics are not the same thing as "determining the consequences of your actions" to you, then you answered your own question of how to "fill the void": you determine the consequences of your actions without metrics. The question of whether metrics are a good way to determine the consequences of actions is separate from the question of consequentialism, or whether actions should be chosen by looking at consequences alone. You seem to be assuming both and I'm challenging both.