5 ms·

The idea is to not look at individual choices but at the aggregate of choices made and measure what mankind considers good.

by Iv 6y ago

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?"
    - Iv 6y ago
      > but I am skeptical that it yields much insight It allowed economist for instance to measure that the price US society is willing to pay to avoid the loss of one random American life is about 8 million USD. I think this is a valuable insight. As for your last paragraph, I think you can truncate it: "a measure of the phenomenon is not an explanation". I agree, but I am not sure why this is a relevant point. We are talking about ethics, not the history of ethics. Understanding virus biology won't necessarily explain virus evolution to you but is still valuable. As for your other earlier point, I am not sure I understand your criticism. Economics has proven that many human decisions are irrational or rationally bounded. It is pretty certain that ethics is no different. Why would it make it incapable of producing worthy results? I am not sure but you seem to assume that "ethics" is a quantity that I propose to measure through a single number. This is not what I am proposing. I think ethics is a domain as large as economics in which some phenomenon can be identified. I am also proposing that people could then use the ethical models produced as a moral guide and have a coherent morality (but a conservative one: customs and normalcy define "good") and reach it through an objective process. I consider myself a progressist, so this is not the morality I will adopt, but I recognize that this is a worthy endeavor nonetheless. If only to measure ethical progress within a society.
      - mannykannot 6y ago
        >> but I am skeptical that it yields much insight > It allowed economist for instance to measure that the price US society is willing to pay to avoid the loss of one random American life is about 8 million USD. I think this is a valuable insight. I see that I was not specific enough, and should have written, "I am skeptical that it yields much insight into the origins of morality and the article author's claim that it is a universal property." I am still doubtful that this observation of current utility provides much insight into the issue that was both the subject of this essay, and of the specific post that you originally replied to. > I am not sure but you seem to assume that "ethics" is a quantity that I propose to measure through a single number. While it is clear now that you have a much more thoroughly developed position, it was the only example given in your original post. We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here, so let me say that I am not questioning the utility of these metrics, but I do not see them as leading to any particular conclusion about the origin and ubiquity of ethics and moral behavior. On rereading your original post in the light of what you have written since, I now take it that your points there are a) morality is something that is built by mankind (as opposed to being universal in the sense that the essay author argues for?); b) the way to find out what a society's ethics are is to measure what it does (as opposed to accepting that its values are what it says they are?) and c) with objective measurements, we can continue to build a better, more effectve morality. If so, I am in complete agreement with b) and share your hope for c). With regard to a), personally I lean more towards TeMPOral's and roenxi's speculation that initial concepts of right and wrong evolved alongside the abilities of self-aware consciousness and the ability to develop a theory of mind, but I am aware that this is just armchair speculation.
        Iv 6y ago
        You are correct with my positions. About a) we are not necessarily in disagreement, we just probably talk about different aspects of morality. I am personally not a believer of objective morality but find that the closest we can get to is that "mankind's morality", which can be argued to be at the root of collective decisions like laws and judgements. You are talking about individual morality, a related but different thing and indeed, collective morality spawns from individual morality so it is unlikely to give insights about individual morality's origin.

The idea is to not look at individual choices but at the aggregate of choices made and measure what mankind considers good.

by 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?"
  - Iv 6y ago
    > but I am skeptical that it yields much insight It allowed economist for instance to measure that the price US society is willing to pay to avoid the loss of one random American life is about 8 million USD. I think this is a valuable insight. As for your last paragraph, I think you can truncate it: "a measure of the phenomenon is not an explanation". I agree, but I am not sure why this is a relevant point. We are talking about ethics, not the history of ethics. Understanding virus biology won't necessarily explain virus evolution to you but is still valuable. As for your other earlier point, I am not sure I understand your criticism. Economics has proven that many human decisions are irrational or rationally bounded. It is pretty certain that ethics is no different. Why would it make it incapable of producing worthy results? I am not sure but you seem to assume that "ethics" is a quantity that I propose to measure through a single number. This is not what I am proposing. I think ethics is a domain as large as economics in which some phenomenon can be identified. I am also proposing that people could then use the ethical models produced as a moral guide and have a coherent morality (but a conservative one: customs and normalcy define "good") and reach it through an objective process. I consider myself a progressist, so this is not the morality I will adopt, but I recognize that this is a worthy endeavor nonetheless. If only to measure ethical progress within a society.
    - mannykannot 6y ago
      >> but I am skeptical that it yields much insight > It allowed economist for instance to measure that the price US society is willing to pay to avoid the loss of one random American life is about 8 million USD. I think this is a valuable insight. I see that I was not specific enough, and should have written, "I am skeptical that it yields much insight into the origins of morality and the article author's claim that it is a universal property." I am still doubtful that this observation of current utility provides much insight into the issue that was both the subject of this essay, and of the specific post that you originally replied to. > I am not sure but you seem to assume that "ethics" is a quantity that I propose to measure through a single number. While it is clear now that you have a much more thoroughly developed position, it was the only example given in your original post. We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here, so let me say that I am not questioning the utility of these metrics, but I do not see them as leading to any particular conclusion about the origin and ubiquity of ethics and moral behavior. On rereading your original post in the light of what you have written since, I now take it that your points there are a) morality is something that is built by mankind (as opposed to being universal in the sense that the essay author argues for?); b) the way to find out what a society's ethics are is to measure what it does (as opposed to accepting that its values are what it says they are?) and c) with objective measurements, we can continue to build a better, more effectve morality. If so, I am in complete agreement with b) and share your hope for c). With regard to a), personally I lean more towards TeMPOral's and roenxi's speculation that initial concepts of right and wrong evolved alongside the abilities of self-aware consciousness and the ability to develop a theory of mind, but I am aware that this is just armchair speculation.
      - Iv 6y ago
        You are correct with my positions. About a) we are not necessarily in disagreement, we just probably talk about different aspects of morality. I am personally not a believer of objective morality but find that the closest we can get to is that "mankind's morality", which can be argued to be at the root of collective decisions like laws and judgements. You are talking about individual morality, a related but different thing and indeed, collective morality spawns from individual morality so it is unlikely to give insights about individual morality's origin.