From: Elaine and Andy (brannen@lookingglass.net)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 01:34:13 MST
By the way, you're blue. I'm not sure if that carries information
or if you're just glad to see me. ;-)
Ben G:
the fact that morality is NOW almost entirely qualitative doesn't mean
to me that it
won't become substantially quantitative one day.
Me:
I agree. The Pythagorean and Plato would agree and that's pretty good
company.
(Socrates himself is particularly missed, a lovely little thinker but a
bugger when
he's pissed.) Of course so would Numerologists and that's not so good.
The danger
here is if the idea "What counts easiest, counts most" or, even worse, "What
counts easiest, counts" is established before enough experimental feedback
is accumulated to determine the Truth Value of the equations. Given our
species predilection to take everything to its logical perversion, no matter
how much it hurts, I am not sanguine. On the other hand, the potential of
developing an objective schemata for making moral decisions does have an
attraction.
Ben G:
I don't think quantitative morality will be more severely abusable than
qualitative morality.
That _would_ be hard to conceive wouldn't it!? Although it is very
easy to conceive it would be abused in the same way: "Your Social Moral
quotient is a sub-par 34%; therefore, we are going to shoot you. It's
For the
Good of Society."
Ben G:
...math can be abused just like anything else.
In most parts of science (and I'm not saying that morality is a science,
though it may become one someday; I'm just making an analogy), the move
to a more quantitative approach has decreased the amount of bias and
abuse, rather than increased it.
Me:
This is a tricky one. I note your qualifiers "In most parts of" and
"decreased
the amount of."
Overall I agree this is the case in the Physical Sciences but the last
century
has also provided depressing counter examples. One of many is the misuse
of mathematics by certain post Modernist thinkers whom, in the most
generous estimate, are one toke over the line. Mathematics has a certain
cachet these days in the half-educated graduates the liberal arts
departments
and universities insist on churning out. In the fields of literary
criticism,
history, philosophy of science, sociology, and anthropology mathematics
- even
when misunderstood or not understood at all - is used as a talisman to
seal an
argument. It is the convincing stamp of approval.
This is obviously an abuse of mathematics but it is rampant and there are
professors and instructors who will go into their classroom tomorrow and
tell their students (get this): "There is no reality or universal laws
uncovered
by science. The so-called laws they claim to discover are merely
interpretations
and have no more validity than any other interpretation." In this view
the state-
ments "the earth rotates on its axis" and "God Wills It" are equally valid
explanations for why the sun rises. To "prove" their thesis they will
trot out
some bogus statistics, set theory, or quantum mechanics and students,
ignorant of statistics, set theory, or quantum mechanics alike, swallow
this
nonsense as valid.
This is getting too off topic for my comfort level so I will let you have
the last word, should you desire, and then end the thread.
Andy
Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:43 MDT