4 ms·

I like the idea that morality is something that is built by mankind and that needs to be extracted by studies. For instance, economists have found the value at

by Iv 6y ago

I like the idea that morality is something that is built by mankind and that needs to be extracted by studies. For instance, economists have found the value at which US society estimates an American's life by seeing at which point risks balances costs in some hazardous investments.

ukj 6y ago
This conception is highly susceptible to Goodhart's law. It favours the quantitative over the qualitative which is a good way to trip over the McNamara fallacy.
- Iv 6y ago
  I don't think so, if it is done properly. For instance you want a human life to be worth more but the only way for that to happen is to actually spend more to save human lives, which makes the value of life increase.
  - ukj 6y ago
    What is your standard for "properness" ?
    - Iv 6y ago
      In this context, "that can't be tricked the way you propose". If you accurately measure the value human society puts on life (that is, avoiding the bias of, e.g. considering only a part of the population that may be privileged) then your only way to trick the metric is by actually increasing the value of human lives.
      - ukj 6y ago
        What is your standard for "accuracy" ?
        Iv 6y ago
        Why do every "philosophical" debate ends up with "let's play semantic and never address the question being actually debated?" Philosophy is about answering real, deep questions, not about trying to find smart ways to pretend your interlocutor is confusing when defining a field that is characterized by the vagueness of the concepts it explores. Either make an effort to understand what your interlocutor mean or explicit why the ambiguity your perceive is relevant. I am arguing that morality is something subjective, created by human society, but that can therefore be measured with the tools of human sciences, like economics. You are arguing that an improper way to measure it would lead to bad outcomes, which I agree with but I fail to see how it addresses the question. Do you think a proper way to measure it is impossible (and the meaning for "proper" here, is, OBVIOUSLY, "that does not lead to the outcomes you outline")? If so can you explain why you think so?
        ukj 6y ago
        On the one hand you dislike semantics, on the other hand you want me to understand your meaning. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I am arguing that the social aspect of morality isn't about measurement, but about whose yardstick we should be using. Said differently: How do we calibrate our measurement instruments? Man is the measure of all things. --Protagoras.
        Iv 6y ago
        Philosophers: arguing that morality can be objective while failing to agree on the meaning of words... So to rephrase your objection, you think it is impossible to have an objective measurement of something in the human society? Are you arguing in practice or in theory? Because right now this is a thought experiment, so for now we can assume perfect knowledge of what is happening within a society. You don't need instruments to calibrate, we are making a theoretical, philosophical point. If we agree that it is possible in practice, then we can talk about how to implement it in our real, imperfect, partly unknown world but it is not even clear we are there yet. > Man is the measure of all things. --Protagoras. I don't know the context of the original quote, but in the context of that discussion, that's the negation of objective truth, something I disagree with. If that's your point of view, we have a core disagreement that's going to invalidate the rest of the discussion.
mannykannot 6y ago
Maybe, but a measure of the phenomenon is not an explanation of how human societies came to have an ethical aspect. It is also possible that the metric is considering only one aspect of a society's ethical position, especially given that things like trolley problems, and some of the things that are done in the name of nominally ethical religions, suggest that people are not consistently rational in their ethical thinking and behavior. One might, for example, value another's life purely on the economic value it is to oneself - would that be an ethical position or the absense of one? I don't doubt that one could make some sort of argument for the former, but ethics are really only interesting when they are at odds with perceived self-interest.
- Iv 6y ago
  The idea is to not look at individual choices but at the aggregate of choices made and measure what mankind considers good.
  - mannykannot 6y ago
    The aggregate of choices is a consequence of what individuals choose, and to try to ignore that is to avoid the issues that determine the outcome.
    - Iv 6y ago
      I am not sure how? Quite the contrary, stating that "good is what the society decides" is a way to solve contradictions in individual choices. That's not my stance, btw, but that's a morality framework that is coherent.
      - mannykannot 6y ago
        > I am not sure how? Quite the contrary, stating that "good is what the society decides" is a way to solve contradictions in individual choices. It seems to me a way to avoid considering the contradictions in individual choices, which is where many of the interesting issues of ethics lie. This stance may be coherent in its own terms (and quantifiable, 'objective' and so forth), but I am skeptical that it yields much insight, and I think it is wise of you to not adopt it. Does this stance offer any specific counter-arguments to the specific points I raised in my original post in this thread? Does it, for example, refute my claim that "a measure of the phenomenon is not an explanation of how human societies came to have an ethical aspect?"

by Iv 6y ago

ukj 6y ago

This conception is highly susceptible to Goodhart's law. It favours the quantitative over the qualitative which is a good way to trip over the McNamara fallacy.

Iv 6y ago
I don't think so, if it is done properly. For instance you want a human life to be worth more but the only way for that to happen is to actually spend more to save human lives, which makes the value of life increase.
- ukj 6y ago
  What is your standard for "properness" ?
  - Iv 6y ago
    In this context, "that can't be tricked the way you propose". If you accurately measure the value human society puts on life (that is, avoiding the bias of, e.g. considering only a part of the population that may be privileged) then your only way to trick the metric is by actually increasing the value of human lives.
    - ukj 6y ago
      What is your standard for "accuracy" ?
      - Iv 6y ago
        Why do every "philosophical" debate ends up with "let's play semantic and never address the question being actually debated?" Philosophy is about answering real, deep questions, not about trying to find smart ways to pretend your interlocutor is confusing when defining a field that is characterized by the vagueness of the concepts it explores. Either make an effort to understand what your interlocutor mean or explicit why the ambiguity your perceive is relevant. I am arguing that morality is something subjective, created by human society, but that can therefore be measured with the tools of human sciences, like economics. You are arguing that an improper way to measure it would lead to bad outcomes, which I agree with but I fail to see how it addresses the question. Do you think a proper way to measure it is impossible (and the meaning for "proper" here, is, OBVIOUSLY, "that does not lead to the outcomes you outline")? If so can you explain why you think so?
        ukj 6y ago
        On the one hand you dislike semantics, on the other hand you want me to understand your meaning. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I am arguing that the social aspect of morality isn't about measurement, but about whose yardstick we should be using. Said differently: How do we calibrate our measurement instruments? Man is the measure of all things. --Protagoras.
        Iv 6y ago
        Philosophers: arguing that morality can be objective while failing to agree on the meaning of words... So to rephrase your objection, you think it is impossible to have an objective measurement of something in the human society? Are you arguing in practice or in theory? Because right now this is a thought experiment, so for now we can assume perfect knowledge of what is happening within a society. You don't need instruments to calibrate, we are making a theoretical, philosophical point. If we agree that it is possible in practice, then we can talk about how to implement it in our real, imperfect, partly unknown world but it is not even clear we are there yet. > Man is the measure of all things. --Protagoras. I don't know the context of the original quote, but in the context of that discussion, that's the negation of objective truth, something I disagree with. If that's your point of view, we have a core disagreement that's going to invalidate the rest of the discussion.

mannykannot 6y ago

Maybe, but a measure of the phenomenon is not an explanation of how human societies came to have an ethical aspect. It is also possible that the metric is considering only one aspect of a society's ethical position, especially given that things like trolley problems, and some of the things that are done in the name of nominally ethical religions, suggest that people are not consistently rational in their ethical thinking and behavior. One might, for example, value another's life purely on the economic value it is to oneself - would that be an ethical position or the absense of one? I don't doubt that one could make some sort of argument for the former, but ethics are really only interesting when they are at odds with perceived self-interest.

Iv 6y ago
The idea is to not look at individual choices but at the aggregate of choices made and measure what mankind considers good.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  The aggregate of choices is a consequence of what individuals choose, and to try to ignore that is to avoid the issues that determine the outcome.
  - Iv 6y ago
    I am not sure how? Quite the contrary, stating that "good is what the society decides" is a way to solve contradictions in individual choices. That's not my stance, btw, but that's a morality framework that is coherent.
    - mannykannot 6y ago
      > I am not sure how? Quite the contrary, stating that "good is what the society decides" is a way to solve contradictions in individual choices. It seems to me a way to avoid considering the contradictions in individual choices, which is where many of the interesting issues of ethics lie. This stance may be coherent in its own terms (and quantifiable, 'objective' and so forth), but I am skeptical that it yields much insight, and I think it is wise of you to not adopt it. Does this stance offer any specific counter-arguments to the specific points I raised in my original post in this thread? Does it, for example, refute my claim that "a measure of the phenomenon is not an explanation of how human societies came to have an ethical aspect?"