3 ms·

>1. There is no opposition between non-deterministic self-organization and quantification. You can measure metrics of any chaotic system. OK then. You've obje

by ukj 6y ago

>1. There is no opposition between non-deterministic self-organization and quantification. You can measure metrics of any chaotic system. OK then. You've objectively measured that ethics (or health, or whatever metric you are going for) is 7. Or (to be a tad sardonic) you've established that the meaning of live, the universe and everything is 42. Eureca! You quantified it. What happens next? >It is totally subjective. Objectivity is inter-subjective consensus. So tell me, if the well-being of humans is 'totally subjective', would your rather live in society 2020 AD, or society 2020BC ?

Iv 6y ago
> What happens next? Better ask yourself what happened before. If you get a number, it means you chose a metric and an algorithm. That's what you get. What you do out of that metric depends on which it is. > Objectivity is inter-subjective consensus. No it is not. Facts can disagree with human consensus. This is an epistemological basis of science. If all humans decide that our soul survives our physical death, it does not make it so automatically. On ethics, though, the starting point of this conversation is that inter-subjectivity is all we need, because true objectivity is not achievable. > So tell me, if the well-being of humans is 'totally subjective', would your rather live in society 2020 AD, or society 2020BC ? 2020 AD. Without hesitation. And I think 95% of the population at least thinks like me, which makes a pretty strong consensus exist on the specific question "did well-being improve in the last 4080 years?". Note that the percentage of approval is an objective metric of the consensus. I am arguing that similarly one can objectively measure the intra-subjective consensus on ethical questions and that this would lead to a coherent moral framework. A pretty conservative one though, as it would equal good to the current habits and customs. It is valuable for people who want something objective; intra-subjectivity is the closest you can get. I personally choose more progressive moral framework which require being comfortable with their subjective nature.

by ukj 6y ago

Iv 6y ago

> What happens next? Better ask yourself what happened before. If you get a number, it means you chose a metric and an algorithm. That's what you get. What you do out of that metric depends on which it is. > Objectivity is inter-subjective consensus. No it is not. Facts can disagree with human consensus. This is an epistemological basis of science. If all humans decide that our soul survives our physical death, it does not make it so automatically. On ethics, though, the starting point of this conversation is that inter-subjectivity is all we need, because true objectivity is not achievable. > So tell me, if the well-being of humans is 'totally subjective', would your rather live in society 2020 AD, or society 2020BC ? 2020 AD. Without hesitation. And I think 95% of the population at least thinks like me, which makes a pretty strong consensus exist on the specific question "did well-being improve in the last 4080 years?". Note that the percentage of approval is an objective metric of the consensus. I am arguing that similarly one can objectively measure the intra-subjective consensus on ethical questions and that this would lead to a coherent moral framework. A pretty conservative one though, as it would equal good to the current habits and customs. It is valuable for people who want something objective; intra-subjectivity is the closest you can get. I personally choose more progressive moral framework which require being comfortable with their subjective nature.