We know for example that it is impossible to give math a completely logical basis. The axiom of infinity for example is part of math but logically impossible. On the other hand, when we are dealing with finite structures can we rely on logic? More importantly, is ethics nothing more than a form of math?
Ethics as a field of mathematics
My current opinion is that ethics is actually a field of mathematics. To make an ethical statement is similar as to make a math statement. That is, if you say 1+1=2 you are expressing addition of two objects to produce a result which is the combination. If we look at the Trolley experiment or any consequence based ethics then it's purely data driven and involves calculation. A decision is better or worse depending on the ratio between costs and benefits.
Rational choice theory
Get the most for your effort.
Are people perfectly rational? Of course not. Do people desire to be perfectly rational? A consequentialist would, but not everyone does. Not all actions have equal value and this is because not all actions produce equal results. This means all actions can be ranked if they don't all have equal value. If we think of actions like we think of elections where we vote, and if we recall the concept of ranked voting, then consequence based behavior would be if a person actually ranks all their possible actions and choices the action ranked highest while avoiding the action ranked lowest.
Should ethics have a logical basis?
This is the fundamental question of this post. What should be rather than what is. What do you think? Should people be motivated to do what is best for them?
In general, I've personally found that acting in the mutual interest (win/win) of myself and others benefits everyone in the long run exponentially. A short term win for myself by taking full advantage, often removes the long term advantage. Meanwhile, making too much of a sacrifice of myself not only removes the motivation to participate, but invites others to take full advantage of me— which eventually lead to my defensiveness and disengagement. Likewise, I imagine if I take full advantage of others, they will (eventually) become defensive as well.
Tony Robbins once said that there is never a lack of resources, only resourcefulness. I took this to mean that there is always a way to get something done without undercutting another person— it just takes a clever person to figure out a strategy that is mutually rewarding.
For instance, it has never been beneficial to me to break someone's trust — at least not in the long run. So in that sense, it's wise that for a favorable long term outcome, building the trust of others favorable to all parties involved. However, if it's a short term gain, then it may not matter— but it certainly can't hurt.
I'm somewhat a Nihilist, however, I don't believe life to be meaningless. Instead, I reject absolutely ethic on the basis of the subjectivity and relativity of morale. Definitions of terms are also very subjective. You and I can both use the word love but mean different things by it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There is wisdom in your words. Reciprocity encourages long term cooperation. Taking advantage of people may bring short term wins but then who can you turn to for the bigger challenges if you develop the reputation of taking advantage at the first opportunity?
My view is, if a person has long term goals in life, long term self interest, then it makes a lot of sense focus on cooperation. Competition is in my opinion the result of scarcity, desperation, fear. If for example we look at nature and we ask nature the question: "What happens when predators run out of prey?"
People have studied this and eventually instead of the predators hunting the prey they eventually start hunting each other, and then they start hunting each other within their own species, and finally they die out. Humans in my opinion have no reason to prey on our own species but due to scarcity or even artificial scarcity it creates desperate states in the human species which creates the conditions for people to believe taking advantage of others is the path forward. In some unfortunate circumstances it might actually be the only way forward but I would think even in those situations people should choose the least damaging ways if they value long term cooperation.
What does any of this mean? In game theory the natural example with predators would highlight the problem of scarcity. When predators run out of food due to scarcity the natural balance is disrupted (zero sum game). Ordinarily there is an equilibrium where predators don't over hunt the prey keeping things in a balance but once a famine hits the prey dies out and then the predators only have other predators.
Reference
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
On the question of love you are exactly right. Unless and until the person defines precisely what love means for them then you cannot assume to understand what they really mean. You may have some idea of how they feel due to empathy but not necessarily what they really mean.
And this is why I consider it like a negotiated concept where each side expresses to the other what they are feeling and what it means for them. Then they can adapt, adjust, compromise, or redefine over time to each other. I think the key is being able to communicate and being able to make adjustments over time from the feedback received from the other.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I wish my upvote was bigger right now. Because I thank you for contributing this thought to the blockchain. I just made a post about love and I would value your insight there.
That aside, I want to add some things here as well. I'm openly a predator. I never deny it nor am I ashamed of it. However, I live by the principal of enemies and allies. To that which I'm loyal to or is loyal to me (allegiance) my mode of movement is build, appreciate, create peace, etc. For those outside this circle, there's enemies and bystanders. Bystanders are potential enemies or potential allies. I strongly believe destruction is inherent to all creativity, life itself, and preservation. Therefore all resource must come from someone or something else. Even all ideas are innovations in a way. What I hope to avoid is overly destructive or lazy creative resourcing. For example, I'm very much into upcycling. Why kill when there's already useful things dead already? I rather build a house out of recycled plastic than trees. However, given my available money, I can't be too choosy about what my apartment is built out of. But I am mindful of how I furnish it for example.
I completely agree that scarcity mindset, insecurity, fear, desperation, ignorance, lack of intellectual prowess, and other factors (even some perceptual and self-deluded) are why people cannibalize one another unnecessarily. It's low vibrational, carnal, imbalance root-chakra (just for framework). These sense threat. And they create threats through the defensive and often pre-emptive offense. Scared people hurt people. Hurt people hurt people. That is, unless of course they're psychopaths. But even these are broken in a way, born broken and working through their Jungian cycles of self-reflection— trying to solve for a seemingly irresolvable neurological miswiring.
To digress, reciprocity is favorable to long term survival. But one determine survival for another. We live in different economies, different environments, different households, different ecosystems, etc. — all getting online and sharing certain global resources.
Someone who has an abusive parent at home is going to approach relationships and life a different way than someone who has a safe habitat.
Me, I have a safe habitat right now. I think long term. I see no point in eating others. And I'm, for the most part, an overly generous person. But I'm selfish, I'm a predator, I'm a mammal, I'm an omnivore, and I own the reality of what and who I am. Moralists get me confused constantly for a masochistic, selfless, kind, person. I gather that is true- but it's not, not fundamentally. It's just how it all plays out. My self-love overflows, if I had none then from where do I give it? I can't give money if my wallet is empty, from where? Out of the sky? No. Lol.
This is like the Spider and Fly analogy.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is how I see it also.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Logic does not guarantee sound reasoning. Premises in logic are sometimes not factual. Logic depends on the quality of facts that supports it.
Ethics is not what we think or feel is right or wrong. Ethics is not relative to an individual’s desires and beliefs.
Ethics is what should be. It may or may not be logical.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Very good points. So maybe logic and ethics can never go together because as you said, logic is sometimes not factual. On the other hand how can we avoid contradictions so we don't attack our own best interests by being illogical?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Tact is the way to avoid contradictions. Ethics is common sense.
As we grow up we absorb norms and ethics of the society we live.
For example I don’t know why logically something is bad; but then I know it is bad. This is like a guide that is already formed for all.
A scenario to lead us on here
One evening, a man with a blood stain on his clothe ran into a house to seek hideout and says people were after his life.
Few minutes later other men came to the same house with guns pointed at the mother and her three kids, the mother was asked to provide the man that ran into their house as he is a wanted man.
There she was, in the presence in her children she was twisted in between ethics i.e lieing and logic...
How to do then....
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Some people in Germany believed in telling the truth even if it got people killed. Other people believed in lying to protect lives. Some in the Soviet Union informed on their own family members, their own parents, their own children.
How do we determine which of these were right? If it' wrong to lie then it's not going to matter how many lives get lost because it's wrong to lie. If it's not wrong to lie then maybe there is no absolute right and wrong.
References
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I believe that people should behave ethically and morally, but I don't believe that this directive comes from the application of logic.
Succinctly, I can't think of any logical reason that Nihilism is incorrect, can you? Concretely, if someone were to kill all life on earth, I can't come up with a logical reason why this is wrong. I wouldn't like such a thing if it happened, but this dislike comes from the assumption that life is good (a conclusion that I cannot come to using purely logic).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If it's not coming from logic where is it coming from? Do you see it as a data driven process or divinely inspired or what?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The question of killing life on earth; if we are going to put it to logic such as p v q in the most basic truth table format, then this all depends on if life has value.
So the first part of the question is: Does life have value? T or F?
The second part of the question is: Does the absence of life have value? T or F?
Of course if life has no value and the absence of life has value then you ask:
Does exterminating life have value? T or F?
Then you can use logic in the form of a truth table. You would end up with something like, if does life have value equals FALSE and if does the absence of life have value equals TRUE then does exterminating life have value must be TRUE.
Logic does not tell you what to value is the point. Logic only tells you how to organize and structure your thinking so you don't contradict yourself. For example it's a contradiction if you don't value life and you value the absence of life but you don't value the extermination of life. At the same time if you value life, if just that one is TRUE, then the absence of life being valuable CANNOT be true without a contradiction.
So if you value life, logic can keep you from ever wanting to take a life because you value life. If you take a life while claiming you value life then you're illogical and your expressions no longer have any meaning.
Of course there is fuzzy logic. You can claim you value some lives and not others but the point is that logic keeps you from making nonsense expressions. If you believe all life is valuable as an ethical statement then to take a life is to reduce the value that life provides to the world.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Nice post,...In my opinion, I think people should be motivated to do what is best for them. Motivation brings out the best in a man.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I believe ethics should be logical. May be because I am a logical person.
Some ethics do have logic and some don't.
Like taking care of your parents when they are old is ethical and logical at the same time. After all they took care of you when you needed it.
Some things I feel are not ethical for eg, cheating in a relationship !!! Sometimes people find their love later in life, may be after marriage as well. Then why is it so unethical if someone leaves somebody for someone else?
Whats the point of being with someone you dont love anymore and not being with someone whom you love just because its considered ETHICAL !!!
Isn't it?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
How do you feel about the concept of reciprocity?
If you are talking about consequences; if you cheat then you broke your agreement. So what are the possible consequences for breaking one of the most important agreements you can make to another person? What do you imagine the costs would be if it is discovered that you cheated? Cost vs benefit.
The way not to cheat is not to agree to something which could result in you cheating.
This is why I asked you about reciprocity. The whole basis of the ethics you're discussing is reciprocity.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Agreement ? How come a relationship is an agreement? Relationship should be based on love, not on agreements !!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
70% love 30% agreement. When it comes to relationship, more emphasis is laid onstaying in love bound by agreement
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Comeon if there is agreement then how can their be love? Its a deal then !! Love is not a deal.
Love is unconditional, something with no demands !! Ahhh, I now feel no one really understands love in this world !! Its all give and take happening. Too sad man !
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Love as unconditional is irrational though. In practice if love were unconditional then an abuser would be able to say they love their victim and the victim would have to love their abuser.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Its not irrational. Only humans dont understand it, else look at animals.
They dont want their kids to take care of them when they grow old, they dont keep expectations from their kids to make them proud, they still take care of them whole heartedly, they still would fight even their predators and death to save their babies even when they won't give them anything in return.
Similarly nature loves us unconditionally and gives us everything. Air, water, etc but still we say that UNCONDITIONAL LOVE IS IRRATIONAL AND IMPRACTICAL.
May be we don't understand love yet !!
And talking about victim and abuser, a person who doesn't love himself cannot love someone else. If he allows himself to be abused, then it's not love in the first place at all !!!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You are talking about parent/child relationship, not partner/partner unrelated adults.
So how does this translate? Yes of course mothers and fathers are capable of unconditional love toward their babies. But this doesn't mean this applies to husband and wife, or girlfriend and boyfriend, or adult partner and adult partner.
How do you make it rational for two adults?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
How would you know someone loves you unless they agree or promise to treat you a certain way and then do what they say? If the actions and behaviors toward you do not matter then I guess it's not much of an agreement but if they do matter then the agreement determines whether it's a relationship or not.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Why do you NEED to know if they love you or not ? Would you love them back only if they loved you at the first place? My parents would love me even if I dont love them back. That's true love.
A relationship with true love doesn't need any promises. If someone loves you truly, they will do everything to keep you happy EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T PROMISE IT TO YOU and if they dont love you, then PROMISES OF THE PAST can not force them to love you. So why are promises needed anyway?
Actions and behaviors OUT OF LOVE can make a relationship work better instead of action and behaviors OUT OF AGREEMENT.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Someone can love you without ever being in a relationship with you. A relationship requires agreement (not the emotion).
This is my own opinion but the relationship is based on the promises. That means if two people marry then they say they'll be with each other in sickness and in health and all that. If they just have feelings for each other they aren't required to date, or marry, they can feel as they feel, but the relationship is the agreement to treat the other a certain way.
If it's just about feelings why not just be friends? Or acquaintances? Why take the additional responsibility?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I have been in WONDERFUL relationships with people without ANY agreement.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Why do you always edit your comments after I reply 😛😅
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well I don't believe in marriages also. Talking about this would take it to another level.
I do believe there is no need of marriages and also commitment. People can live much happier if they just be with each other BECAUSE THEY LOVE BEING WITH EACH OTHER.
We humans have made everything so complicated just to secure our future. And its killing all the fun, excitement and adventure of life.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
In your opinion what makes a relationship a relationship? And what constitutes the end of a relationship?
I'd be interested in reading your blog posts on these topics.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You used your parents as an example but this is perhaps a bad example. In adult relationships where they are not your parents is it unconditional? Should it be unconditional? What if one side begins abusing the other side? What if one side makes no promises and so they treat the other side as they feel like without any guard rails legally or morally?
If all you have to depend on is their emotional integrity this could fail and then what do you have? What if you choose the wrong person?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Then you can leave the wrong person !!!
Dont you choose a wrong phone and realize their is a better one in the market? Don't you try a hundred fields of career to choose the one perfect you ?
Don't you give up a 100 times to succeed once?
What's the issue?
It still happens even after promises. And what you do is try stay away from them !! Respecting and loving yourself should always be the first priority as I said.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I believe a person should straightaway go and tell their partner that they are in love with someone else now. They dont do it because it is considered unethical. Whta would be the cost of it?
Well the other person should understand and should be fine with it.
Well reciprocity is logical...isnt it? Whats illogical in reciprocity ? If mutual benefits are taking place and no one is getting harmed, then whats the issue?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is a point in a million
When ethics is faced with a situation such as the 1+1 then maybe ethics can be logical, but a lot of time it is not as 1+1 which is why i dont think ethics should have logical basis
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There are scenarios which result in lose lose situations. Some problems do not have good solutions. So then the strategy is choose the least bad or least worst solution. Even bad outcomes are not equally bad. So if all outcomes are never equal then there is a preference for an outcome. If there is a preference then the math of it is about figuring out which decisions lead to the desired outcome.
Example, would you rather be killed immediately or tortured to death is a lose lose no matter how you slice ir or calculate it. A person can still choose between A or B, so logic and math still apply.
At what point do logic and math not apply? I'm not sure there is a point where math doesn't apply. Do you value all outcomes equally? No? Then math definitely applies.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I guess the precursor question is - what is ethics when there are multiple stakeholders in a decision( in business - shareholders, family, employees, society, competition/the industry, vendors, customers)?
For a large company, what is a fundamental purpose - to maximize profits for shareholders. So is it ethical to serve their interests even if it harms other stakeholders?
Game Theory is fascinating. Two parties would be better off cooperating than each acting selfishly. However one party is better off acting selfishy if the other party will be "un-selfish". In a game with a fixed number of rounds, the best decision is to be selfish on the last round because other party can't retaliate.
This line of thinking it would be ethical for a company to maximize shareholder profits, at the expense of the other parties in "the game" and perhaps at the expense of society, employees etc.
My conclusion -math alone can't solve ethics, lest we let AI overlords rule the world.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You sort of know my opinion on that. I think math CAN solve ethics specifically because ethics ARE a field of math. This is just my own opinion based on my experiences.
If we are talking about shareholders, stakeholders, family, customers, all of this depends on the management of expectations. The management of expectations depends in receiving continuous feedback of sentiment, and to adjust decisions with this new information as a factor in the decision.
This is a data driven process in my opinion. Because it is data driven, it can be quantified, and is, but most people don't consciously recognize it. For example when you're in a room and 5 out of 6 people in that room all feel you are wrong, are you not going to reconsider whether or not you are wrong? It may be that they are wrong, but it's the number in this case which puts you into a retrospective state. What about if it's one very important person who thinks you are wrong but a bunch of other people who aren't so important to you think you are right? If you can quantify importance by a number then again you've got a calculation and it's math.
On what level isn't it math is my question? Can you give me an example of where an ethical dilemma can be solved without any numbers, any calculation, any math?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I can give a dilemna that I don't think can be solved. Can Math solve this:
Self-driving car's breaks go out. Elderly person in the cross-walk, an early thirties athlete, a young child, a dog, a school teacher.
Easy Mode: Car can't stop, has to hit someone resulting in taking their life, or make a maneuver that will take the life of the driver.
Hard Mode: same as Easy Mode except Driver is a criminal that stole the car
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
A more challenging scenario in my opinion is, what if you have an AI which actually knows everyone better than anyone knows themselves? A super intelligence which is smarter than us all combined. Is it ethical if this AI decides which among us should live and should die? It's wiser than all of us, it's smarter, it knows us better than we know ourselves, it can sort us in a way which would probably be fair and maybe even provably fair at that, so would we consider it ethical if this death reaper AI decides that our name is next?
I would think even if it is ethical a lot of people would rebel against the AI and call it evil. I don't think people would necessarily care if the AI by it's assessment determines that some lives are worth more than others and sorts according to that.
What does this say about ethics? Well it doesn't say that human beings are any better at it either. Humans have wars and dehumanize the other side. So whether we get dehumanized by other humans or by a machine it's pretty much the same result.
But for some irrational reason people are terrified of the idea of a machine dehumanizing and deciding the kill list. I understand why people feel this but it doesn't mean it's rational.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Ideally in my opinion the driver should decide this, not "the car". Since the scenario you put forward is not ideal and a machine has to decide then in my opinion it's still a data driven process and about calculation.
In order to do it from a consequence based perspective there has to be preferences. Preferences are subjective. The people or person in the car has preferences which are known or unknown? The people not in the car have unknown preferences for sure.
The car typically knows the person in the car the best and so it should save the life it knows rather than lives it knows nothing about. On the other hand if all lives are strangers, meaning the car knows nothing to distinguish between any of them or their preferences, then all lives are equal on all levels. This is the scenario where the car owner does not express their preferences to the car on what they would want the car to do in this situation (sort of like how organ donors express their wish prior to an accident).
If you say the car gets to know age, athleticism, etc, you've ruined the experiment because now the car knows more about the people outside the car than in it. But the car doesn't know the most important thing that matters which is; "does the person in the car value their own life or is the person in the car willing to sacrifice their own life?".
I would say absolutely 100% math can solve this, but math can only solve it if it knows the preferences of all involved, and has knowledge of all involved (or has no knowledge of any involved). If there is no knowledge about anyone, complete strangers, such as if you're a business which knows nothing about the customers due to privacy so they are all just random numbers or code names, then how would you not treat all customers as equal? So the math would say save the most customers and this would be best for business.
So the math looks like this:
So now it's just a numbers game. If you have total strangers only, save the most of them as possible without regard for preferences. Once you have more data such as preferences, or anything else (this builds over time) then you can either save lives based on these preferences (such as women and children first like the Titanic strategy) or save who you know best or who you like most first etc. There are many many different sorting algorithms for who to save and why based on quantified values and preferences.
So the math or algorithm would simply qualitatively sort lives by preferences based on a continuous stream of data, or it would sort lives quantitatively which is simply the greatest good for the greatest number utilitarianism. A human being behind the car knows themselves best, probably prefers their own life in most cases, so most humans probably would save themselves. Most humans who drive together probably know each other better than they know whoever is outside the car. In a rare situation where a human knows nothing about anyone inside the car and doesn't value their own life then they would sacrifice themselves to save many. Some humans have sacrificed themselves to save others so we cannot act as if some haven't made this choice but the ethical choice all depends on what you value, your preferences, how much you know, etc.
References
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
But people should naturally know whats good for them. But i know when people are motivated, they can do anything. Well, almost
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I will admit, I rarely know what is good for me. It's not easy to figure that out. It's easier to figure out what is NOT GOOD for me.
How can we naturally know what is good for us?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Experience?
And observing others?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Congratulations @dana-edwards! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
To support your work, I also upvoted your post!
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDownvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
For me ethics are very important and doing what is in my best interest within the boundaries of ethics. Where logic is concerned I will not always want to use it as at times its good to give a free hand and not be confined to is it logical, does it make sense.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit