4 ms·

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 s

by 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.
        ukj 6y ago
        Everything can be measured in principle and in practice. Are you hungry? Yes. That trivial question/answer exchange allowed me to measure 1 bit of information about your state or hunger. Measurement isn’t the difficulty. Objectivity is the difficulty. For a measurement to become “objective” it requires inter-subjective consensus. Disagreement is the thing which hinders consensus. And there is plenty of disagreement to go around when it comes to measuring things like “health”.
        Iv 6y ago
        The atoms that compose your body are going in random directions right now, at pretty high speed, that's what create temperature. Many of your atoms go in totally opposite directions at any given time. Even drawing the line in the set of atoms that is you is ambiguous at each breath. Yet, it does not sound far-fetched an idea that you have an objectively measurable vertical speed relative to the ground and that it would be safer to maintain that speed under a current level? Consumers all attach different subjective values to objects, yet, markets converge on a price that is considered consensual, yet almost everyone disagrees on the consensus reached. This is because there is a consensus not in the result, but in the process that leads to that result. Morality in societies are similar: No one is exactly aligned with everyone else on moral questions, yet, the general state of affairs results in a consensual compromise that can be measured in the same way that you can measure the market price of an item by confronting buyers and sellers.

by Iv 6y ago

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.
        ukj 6y ago
        Everything can be measured in principle and in practice. Are you hungry? Yes. That trivial question/answer exchange allowed me to measure 1 bit of information about your state or hunger. Measurement isn’t the difficulty. Objectivity is the difficulty. For a measurement to become “objective” it requires inter-subjective consensus. Disagreement is the thing which hinders consensus. And there is plenty of disagreement to go around when it comes to measuring things like “health”.
        Iv 6y ago
        The atoms that compose your body are going in random directions right now, at pretty high speed, that's what create temperature. Many of your atoms go in totally opposite directions at any given time. Even drawing the line in the set of atoms that is you is ambiguous at each breath. Yet, it does not sound far-fetched an idea that you have an objectively measurable vertical speed relative to the ground and that it would be safer to maintain that speed under a current level? Consumers all attach different subjective values to objects, yet, markets converge on a price that is considered consensual, yet almost everyone disagrees on the consensus reached. This is because there is a consensus not in the result, but in the process that leads to that result. Morality in societies are similar: No one is exactly aligned with everyone else on moral questions, yet, the general state of affairs results in a consensual compromise that can be measured in the same way that you can measure the market price of an item by confronting buyers and sellers.