Sacrifice
|
how far can you break it down though? as have i - perhaps less ardently than you - engaged in discourse over morals, over their perceived conception and my challenge to view it in a more stratified, quantifiable manner. can you give an example please? in turn i'll share a personal experience of mine - awhile back during the michael brown debacle i discussed how people considered the case police injustice against blacks. so to break it down into measurable parts, i identified the parametres of that context - race, location, number of people involved, the integrity of the witnesses, the context within the case. so break down race - that becomes black and white, at which point you need to integrate the factors of opportunity, society, culture, oppression... the rabbit hole just goes down too far. i'm not trying to play contrarian here - i'd actually be really enlightened if you could show me how it's done.
as for a single rigid code by which to filter down arguments with logic - it does seem sci-fi-esque, very much so. like spilling out of some kind of semi-utopic novel about a future where machines are judge, jury, and executioner and there is a court case that goes awry and a group of 'futuristic luddites' want to challenge the status quo, where the moral of the story is "there is no moral of the story because morals aren't as simple as black and white." Last edited by Juicebox360 on Jan 10, 2015, 3:12:07 PM
|
|
|
hey guys, can I get in on this?
Spoiler
 Don't forget to drink your milk 👌
| |
| |
|
honestly the 'nice guy with a fedora' trope plays well into the discussion because a lot of these purported 'nice guys' were once people who were disillusioned with human society either because they 1. couldnt get laid or 2. were bullied at a young age. regardless they felt alienated from society until they felt that they were entitled to some sexual recompense due to their noble, bohemian friendliness, a justification stemming from the combination of the ideals that people are different from them, so their own different behaviour is excusable, and that in the world of logic, reciprocation is a basic tenet (newton's laws of motion, boolean logic). both misguided in pretense but noble in execution. but you know what they say about the road to hell.
|
|
|
Objective morals is like that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, entirely mythical, and I hope that's not what you're after. A moral consensus is more realistic and maybe there will one day be a way to quantify the parameters attributed to these agreed upon set of moral values.
Sam Harris (I think it was) talked about the possibility of going the neuroscientific route by measuring suffering and quantify it that way, but if that's all you want to do there are ways to reduce suffering that would be viewed as outright atrocious to most cultures on the planet. You won't get no glory on that side of the hole.
| |
|
that's what i'm getting at. humanity is too varied and unique in their realisations of what's right and what's wrong, it's going to be too hard to come to a solution that boils down to "input race; input gender; input sexual orientation; input social standing; input age; input culture; using enumerations based on these variables, reach a conclusion."
Last edited by Juicebox360 on Jan 10, 2015, 3:28:59 PM
|
|
" What i find astounding is that people want to be individuals but on the other hand they want everyone to have their opinion on things so they want everyone to be the same but different. Thats not how it works of course and then people fight and spread hate. Im about making friends and being nice, i dont fight or hate of theres no good reason like someone bullying someone else or something. Spread hugs not hate. *hugs* |
|
" The biggest issue which prevents me from just writing such an algorithm right now is that fundamentally, values are based on the goals of your system. So before you can instantiate the variables you must first have your goals listed. And from those goals each variable is described to limit or encourage paths toward towards or away from it. Its a bit difficult to describe with my rudimentary vocabulary. Logical consequences can be preconceived. But first the desired outcome must be stated or else we get lost in the infinity of possibilities. We must cull all but relevant data pertaining to our goal. This data is comprised of the variables we will need to use. But this doesnt answer your question, i know im sorry. First we must have the goals set. And despite the time iv spent on it, its nowhere near complete. For years i searched for deep truths. A thousand revelations. At the very edge...the ability to think itself dissolves away.Thinking in human language is the problem. Any separation from 'the whole truth' is incomplete.My incomplete concepts may add to your 'whole truth', accept it or think about it
| |
" Morality free of bias is absolutely a real possibility. The goals just need to be precisely defined. You can agree or disagree with the goals, but the moral framework will remain 'objective' in a sense so long as it can be applied evenhandedly. For years i searched for deep truths. A thousand revelations. At the very edge...the ability to think itself dissolves away.Thinking in human language is the problem. Any separation from 'the whole truth' is incomplete.My incomplete concepts may add to your 'whole truth', accept it or think about it Last edited by SkyCore on Jan 10, 2015, 4:58:15 PM
| |
|
no, that's a good start! and it definitely makes sense. but that's akin to programming a system without, say, polymorphism or dynamism. like making a game engine that doesn't ever use "entity" classes, rather the direct entities themselves like "mp5" or "spetsnaz agent #242556". and i can't agree with it, because in the end somebody will inevitably disagree with your intended end. like eugenics, we can reach logical conclusions for and by it, but that doesn't mean everyone's going to stand by it.
i admire you for your attempt, and in my heart, i do hope you make progress with it, but i just don't think it'll ever be possible with us humans. and dirk, try telling that to people inherent with rage and hatred. it's nearly impossible to dispel that spite. i recall talking to a radical feminist once who said it's necessary to extricate the patriarchy. i asked her why not just meet halfway? why not just raise women to the level of man? to which she replied that it must be man who must be lowered to the level of women because "power begets power; in order to have power, one must first take it from those in power." |
|
