> After all, a common complaint about practical ethics is that there are too many factors for any one person to consider. A similar complaint could be made abou

> After all, a common complaint about practical ethics is that there are too many factors for any one person to consider. A similar complaint could be made about weather forecasting, economic modelling and space travel – and yet we seem to be able to do all of the above just fine with the aid of computers. Space travel is very hard, but it's "just physics." Weather forecasting is harder, and we get it wrong a lot of the time. Economic modelling is harder still, and our inability to do this accurately was arguably a major contributor to the subprime mortgage issue that led to the last economic down-turn. So, taking moral advice from computers seems like a bad idea. I think it helps to distinguish between which problems are "wicked" or not - while it may be technically true that some function is represented by a Turing machine, as a practical matter the amount of data would be too large, and how one measures the "output" of the function has so much ambiguity, that it's not practically doable. (I don't know the original source of the term "wicked problem," but it's a concept others have written a lot about why it's different.)