mathematical morality

8/11/2019 Mathematical Morality

1/9

Mathematical Morality 10/21/2011

So, I'm reading "The Big Questions" by Steven E. Landsburg, and he believes thatit is a moral obligation to push one person in front of a mine art to save five other

people. In the movie !nthinable, a similar situation is presented. #hen it omes to

!nitarian and a deontologist values, I have usually onsidered myself a modified$deontologist, but I seem to tae a holisti approah. %o&ever, I ust don't understand the

point of a mathematial morality( the most happiness for the most people) I'm not sure

I really see the point. Suffering in ust one person is still suffering, &hy does it matterho& many there are) Is it better to ill relatives so that they feel no remorse) Is it better

to ill five drifters than it is to ill one person &ith a big family that &ill miss them)

*nd is it better for five people to feel slightly bad or for one person to feel

ompletely horrible) I guess I'm going to ramble a little bit in this, ust to vent all my+uestions and vie&s about this. or e-ample, &hat is the goal of morality happiness or

progress of soiety) I don't no& if I &ould be &illing to let one person die so that fivemay live, but I may be &illing to let one person die so that &e have a ure for aner... or

even if it brought us more effiient tehnology/ ho&ever, I &ould feel more guilty about

letting the person die than by passing up the hane for ne& tehnology 0even the ure foraner1. 2ue to this guilt, I &ould assume that I &ould be going against my vie&s on

morality, but then &ouldn't most people feel more guilty illing someone diretly, than

indiretly letting five people die)

I feel that, urrently... and I may hange my mind later, that the best option for a

moral hoie is the one that maes us feel less guilty 0and besides, &ho &ants to have theperson &ho &ould in atual irumstanes, thro& someone in front of a mine art, as afriend)1. 3f ourse, there is the problem of people &ho feel no guilt, so maybe I should

rephrase &hat I mean by stating I thin people should tae the route that avoids them

diretly ausing negative results to happen, despite potential for &orse indiretonse+uenes. This means that you an ill someone 0or more than one1 if they are

threatening the life of an innoent person, but you annot ill an innoent person to save

the lives of more innoent people. So, I suppose I'm a utilitarian that refuses to maesarifies for the "greater good".

$Greg dratsab Huffman

(10/22/2011) NOTE:If the &orld is over$populated, does that mean that the !tilitarian

hoie is to let more people die, or even atively ill more people on purpose) That

&ould ause greater happiness, orret)


2/9

(10/23/2011) NOTE:Is there a ontinuum &hen it omes to ative involvement) Is

pushing a button no&ing your ation &ill shift the trolleys and ill someone else as bad,

or as innoent, as the other options) It is similar to the 4ihard 5elly movie, The Bo-067781, in that you have the option to tae someone9s life &ithout muh ative

involvement, but does that mae it better) *lso, is there a ontinuum for the type of

person someone &ould be &illing to shove in front of the trolley) If they are &illing topush a fat man to save :, &ould they be &illing to put a baby in front of the trolley)

(8/18/2013) UPDATE:4ES;3E*QS T3 T43LLE? ;43BLE>

anythingisfine posted...

statistially, most people &ould pull the lever but &ould not push the person... but the big+uestions is #%?)

My response

Beause morality isn't ust a number. #hat value is there really in more people survivingassuming your soiety isn't in danger of e-tintion) It matters ho& you treat people more.

*nd thro&ing someone over a liff isn't treating people very niely. Saving someone's life

is a nie at, but it is negated &hen you must intentionally hurt an innoent person to doso. or instane, &ould &e say that someone is morally good if they saved @7 people, but

murdered A)

(9/18/2013) NOTE: Moral e!ort "ar#

Though I have argued against a mathematial moral system, I have given somethought to applying a grading system to mae morals more realisti, and so &e don9tstress every time &e mae a small moral slip. or instane this +uote of mine ame into

my head today !tilitarianism grades lie a laCy math teaher, but deontologial ethis

re+uires that you sho& your &or.D

>aybe &e should give ourselves 0and maybe even others1 a moral report ard.

?ou ould organiCe it by day, &ee, month, et. If you tell a lie, thin of it lie a spellingmistae on a paper and subtrat a fe& points from yourself. If you ath someone else

lying, you an subtrat a fe& points from an internal soreard you eep of them. ?ou

an put a Cero$tolerane poliy on ertain things suh as murder, rape, or anything you

udge to be beyond the horiCon of aeptable mistaes. In bet&een these, you an assigngrading as you see fit. If you ommit betrayal on a friend, and feel very guilty about this,

then you an give yourself a Cero for that assignment, &hih means you &ill have to &or

e-tra hard to mae it up. >aybe even doing some ommunity servie or volunteer &or


3/9

for e-tra redit)

The point of this system &ould be to allo& people to mae mistaes, and not allthem immoral people unless they sore belo& a ertain level 0isn9t it usually 8F or

lo&er that is onsidered failing)1 ?ou an then ran &ho of your friends is the most

moral of the bunh. 3f ourse, you &on9t be able to see all of their ations, so you &illnever no& for sure. !nlie in shool, you aren9t re+uired to turn in your assignments.

%o&ever, if you are honest &ith yourself, you should be able to apply this formula to

your o&n moral system. 3f ourse, you have to hoose your moral rules first. Thus,&hat others may onsider hyporitial beause you are maing deisions ontrary to your

o&n established ethis, you &ould merely onsider a moment of &eaness that &ill lo&er

your moral grade for that &ee or month.

MOA$ EPOT "AD E%PON%E o& 'aceoo:

Sam Diamond:But &ho has the time)

Gregory Everette Huffman:?ou don't have to physially eep a list of everything you do,

ust lie not everyone eeps a opy of their budget around. %o&ever, they do ind ofhave a rough idea of &hat their finanial situation is. The point isn't so muh to be e-at,

but the point is to not be disheartened by maing a fe& mistaes and saying "fu it" and

thro&ing your moral system out the &indo& sine you feel you have failed it. Gust lie&hen someone buys a andy bar or movie they didn't need they shouldn't say "fu itH"

and start buying ne& ars and rashing them, sine they made a small budgeting mistae.

(9/20/2013) Mea*+ri&, e-il* y #eo&tolo,y -* +tilitaria&i*m.

#ould your moral system be a fator in deiding &hat you onsider more evil in regards

to number of people illed versus ho& they &ere illed) or e-ample, in a ase of &ho ismore evil bet&een harles #hitman and Issei Saga&a, if you preferred utilitarianism as

your moral system &ould you say harles #hitman) *nd if you &ere a deontologist

&ould you say that Issei Saga&a &ould be the more evil bet&een the t&o)

(12/1/2013) Tho+,ht:

I9m beginning to thin that any ation that no&ingly produes a vitim of inustieannot be onsidered a moral ation. There may possibly be some ases in &hih to save

soiety one &ould need to at in a utilitarian fashion, but I thin this is an alternative to

ating morally, and that utilitarian moralsD is maybe an o-ymoron. This means that


4/9

utilitarian ations may at for the publi goodD but not for the individual and his rights.

I &ould also say that any ation &hih does not reate a vitim of inustie annot belabeled as immoral, beause all immoral ations re+uire a vitim of inustie. *nd

oneself annot be said to ommit an immoral ation if one only harms oneself, beause it

maes no sense to upbraid a person &ho is also the vitim( that &ould be blaming thevitim. *lso, part of ommitting an immoral ation is using your positive freedomD to

impede the negative freedomD 0rights1 of someone else. So, ho& an one use his o&n

freedom to infringe upon his o&n rights)

ame'A* re*!o&*e to immoral actio& re+iri&, a -ictim o i&4+*tice:

soysturm posts (1/1/201!"

Let's say that you and I are the last t&o beings that e-ist on the planet. I am in avegetative state from &hih I &ill never reover. ?ou are a dotor and no& that I &ill

never reover. ?ou have your &ay &ith my body. Is that immoral) an you say that I &asa vitim of your assault &hen I'm both physially and mentally una&are that you have

done anything to me) If I am, then &hy) *ny udgment that &ould be made &ould

re+uire a third party, as neither you nor I &ould be in a position to udge aurately. If I'mnot onsidered a vitim, then an you say that your ation &as immoral)

and you say that there must be an obetive foundation for ethis but i don't neessarilyagree &ith that, at the very least beause i'm not entirely ertain that humans an ever be

obetive about anything

i mean if you're a sentimentalist then you're basing your ethis on your feelings &ithoutaring about obetivity

*nd I'm not neessarily trying to argue against your point. I'm ust thro&ing JJJJ outbeause I should be sleeping and apparently deided to tae a fe& minutes to &rite this...

i mean ust the first thing i thought &as that those t&o ideas don't even neessarily maesense together as lie B*2 T%I*5E ;E3;LE EEL B*2 and as suh doing bad

things &ill >*5E T%3SE ;E3;LE EEL B*2 so ho& an you possibly say you're

basing anything in obetivity &hen your theory is entirely based on something &hih is

subetive by its definition

*tually, ust re$reading your first post, I'd say that the only ations I an thin of that

23


5/9

ations 0should I read a boo or listen to a reord for the ne-t t&enty minutes, should I

eat this hien right no& or in five, should I smile at that ro or not1. If that's the ase,

then &hat &ould be the point of having this moral system, as every non$non$moral ationyou ould tae &ould be immoral)

#oody1 posts (1/1/201!"to tae it up a noth and tae it to something that isn't a hypothetile +uestion

&hat if someone has se- &ith a death orpse that has no living relativesKfriends andnobody finds out)

no vitim but still very imoral0at least for most people1

Greg Huffman posts (1/2$/201!"%onestly, I thin the orpse should be vie&ed as a disarded shell, and ontroversially... I

have to say I don't really find it immoral. Some people might symbolially find ithorrible, lie someone taing a piture of their daughter and using it for target pratie,

but outside of that, I really don't thin it is so muh of a moral issue as a mental 0and

physial1 health problem.

The vegetative state one is atually the one that maes me thin a little harder, ho&ever I

don't thin a third party maes any differene at all. It ind of reminds me of abortion. Ifthe baby doesn't feel anything, &on't remember it 0obviously sine it &on't e-ist after1,

and undergoes no suffering, does that mean that it is morally oay) %o&ever, for the

vegetative state thing 0to differentiate it from the nerophilia +uestion1, I'm thining itmight be a fair argument to say that as long as you are alive it &ould be infringing onyour rights to your body if I &ere to do &hat I &ish &ith it.

I'm also not sure that ethis las obetivity so muh as they ust improve &ith time, ustlie siene has led to mistaes, but that doesn't mean it isn't getting loser to the truth. I

thin the main goal of ethis 0at least legally speaing1 is allo&ing as muh freedom for

people as possible to their o&n lives &hile maing sure they don't infringe on the rightsof others. 3n a personal level, I &ould lie to see more people treating more people &ith

indness and respet in general, but that shouldn't have muh legal enforement.

Greg Huffman posts (2/%/201!"responding to final paragraph in soysturm9s argumentM

4emove "indiret" from the e+uation, beause &ithout intent to reate vitims or at least a

realiCation that there is a high probability of ollateral damage, one's at most liely isn't


6/9

immoral. #hen you start bargaining &ith other people's rights through !tilitarianism...

that is &hen problems arise. I'm not saying suh a proess might not be deemed neessary

in some e-treme ases, suh as &hen running a ountry, but these ations an hardly bealled moral. #hen you mae utilitarian hoies, you are giving up morals in order to

protet your interests 0suh as your ountry1.

(3/25/2015) 6&te&t o& the 6i-i#+al:

I reently &as doing some of the e-periments on philosophye-periments.om and

one of the morality senarios stumped me. #hy &as it that I felt that it &as morally&rong to eat one of the asta&ays on an island to survive, but that I &as morally

aepting of a nurse that illed her patients to protet them from the horrors of the


7/9

s&erved to hit &as a popular person &ho had more family members and friends that

&ould have to suffer this tragedy)

But the &orld is overpopulated as it is, do &e really need to fous on maing morality

about the number of the population &e &ould lose) I'm not trying to be "old" and say it

&ould be a good thing if they died, but simply I'm saying that I don't see the importaneattahed to number, maybe it is a remnant from primitive times &hen there &as a danger

that the tribe &ould go e-tint) Is it better to prolong the suffering of many, or to let them

die out so that stronger and happier onsious beings an tae their plae 0or at leastprevent them from reproduing1)


8/9

not no& &hat they are missing, and they only thing &hat they have is good, beause

they don9t no& &hat to ompare it to.

3ne benefit of this system is that it &ould prevent multi$ulturalists from

advoating for Islam, sine many >uslim &omen aren9t happy &ith the &ay things are

urrently being handled in their ultures. They &ould vote against ho& things are, andthis sore &ould be ompared to other moral systems, and if it ame up heavily laing

0&hih I &ould assume it &ould1 then &e &ould be right to ensure them and urge them

to alter their religious teahings to be more inlusive of &hat more people &ant so thateveryone in the area is a loser to being a bit happier. The full politis of ho& to handle

this aren9t going to be disussed here, but I merely &ant to eluidate ho& the system of

measure &ould be set$up.

So, this system &ould onsiders &orlds full of psyhopaths, serial illers, andsadomasohists. In a &orld full of masohists, there may be a @77F approval rating

despite being a &orld full of pain. %o&ever, a @77F rating &ould mean that no one felttheir rights &ere being violated and no one felt there &as inustie being ommitted.


9/9

I9m beginning to rethin &hat the ultimate aim of morality or ethis should be. I

remember reading some boo about ethis and they said that despite the desription for

utilitarian ethis being the greatest happiness for the greatest number, that really allethial systems aimed to ahieve this, but deontology ust onsidered the more subtle

fators that utilitarianism overlooed.

%o&ever, I9m starting to &onder if the real aim of morality and ethis should be

the least amount of inustie for the least amount of people. If you try to ma-imiCe

happiness, you run into a fe& problems. Should you ill all of the unhappy people)Should you reate more people to reate a great number of people to share in the

happiness) Should you spread happiness out) It seems if you tried to enat some of

these ends, espeially using politial po&er, then you &ind up ommitting a series ofinusties along the &ay. %o&ever, it seems that &hile it surely is a morally positive

thing to reate happiness, it9s even &orse to do it if it reates a morally negative ation ofinustie. It seems that first, before ahieving happiness for a great number, &e should

redue inustie for a great number. If you &ere hopped do&n in the street for the saeof the happiness of three people, &ould you feel lie you had enountered the blade of a

moral person &ho is going to mae the &orld a better plae) It is better to let three men

die than to save them by putting the blood of one on your hands. I &ould rather live in a&orld &ith less inustie, &ith less sarifiial vitims than a plae that &as &illing to

mo& you do&n for the greater good.D There is no greater good for the man &ho is

deprived of his onsiousness, beause good only e-ists if a onsiousness if able tomae that value udgment. So, &ho benefits from the greater good) *ny group that

benefits from ommitting inustie is an unust group that doesn9t deserve to live in

happiness, regardless.

mathematical morality

Documents