Trayvon Martin Case

Some here have maintained that ethical decisions can be expressed as mathematical equations.

Really? Who?

My question then is, what ethical theory gets used to produce such quantification? Deontology? Bergsonian emotivism? Rawlsian theory of justice? Utiltarianism? Kantian universalism? Aristotelian virtue ethics?

What are we using now?

One cannot talk about quantifying ethics without taking a position on ethical theory.

You're the one introducing ethics. You may be interested in the Alan Partridge Show (http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4276841), you remind me of a character named Simon Fisher, possibly the character was based on you?

Please tell me which theory is in play and why we should choose that mode of quantification. Or stop naively talking about quantifying ethics. One or the other will do.

You're a little late to the discussion and in no position to set terms or make demands but as I enjoy arguing I'd suggest we use the ethics currently in place.

^
In post 444 of this thread, YOU made the claim that ethical decisions "can very easily be made" into mathematical equations. So that answers your question of who made that claim.

My question, however, remains unanswered: which ethical theory do we use to quantify ethical decisions, as you have maintained? And why do we use that one, rather than some other?

For example, virtue ethics approve of actions which utilitarianism abhors, and vice versa. So we need a theoretical platform to stand on before any hope of quantification can occur.

You can't claim that ethics can be quantified without knowing about ethical theory. So please show your cards on this question.

I suddenly realized what this argument reminds me of:

22Tj_l4PcPs

^
In post 444 of this thread, YOU made the claim that ethical decisions "can very easily be made" into mathematical equations. So that answers your question of who made that claim.

<SNIP>
__________________________________________________ _______
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin http://www.thewarpath.net/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/47118-trayvon-martin-case-30.html#post919893)
The concepts of “right” and “wrong” are not mathematical equations based on data retrieval.

They can very easily be made so.
__________________________________________________ _______

To clarify, as you're not following along, we currently have laws and we can convert a law and the breach of the law to a formula. At no point did I or anyone else mention ethics.

You're deliberately introducing a derailing topic.

Mooby, it's not even looking that well organized or articulate.

<SNIP>
__________________________________________________ _______
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin http://www.thewarpath.net/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/47118-trayvon-martin-case-30.html#post919893)
The concepts of “right” and “wrong” are not mathematical equations based on data retrieval.

They can very easily be made so.
__________________________________________________ _______

To clarify, as you're not following along, we currently have laws and we can convert a law and the breach of the law to a formula. At no point did I or anyone else mention ethics.

You're deliberately introducing a derailing topic.

Actually ethics were mentioned in several posts, including by you in at least post 444.

And talking about ethics is hardly "derailing" a discussion about how the legal system should work. Ethical principles supply foundational notions of law and justice. In fact, we can't even define the word "justice" without availing ourselves of ethical principles. So, for example, definition #1 of "justice" in the Oxford English Dictionary is "The quality of being (morally) just or righteous; the principle of just dealing; the exhibition of this quality or principle in action; just conduct; integrity, rectitude. (One of the four cardinal virtues.)."

Therefore, since you claim to have a superior system of justice, you are also involved in ethics. A discussion of ethics goes right to the heart of your claims, whether you like it or not.

But you still haven't responded to my question.

Actually ethics were.......<SNIP>

Don't care. I'm taking about taking (hypothetically) the human error out of the judicial system. Replace judges and juries with a computerized adjudication system (simplistically speaking).

We already have laws in place that would need to be coded in conjunction with the penalties.

To clarify, as you're not following along, we currently have laws and we can convert a law and the breach of the law to a formula. At no point did I or anyone else mention ethics.

You're deliberately introducing a derailing topic.

A law and its breach can be converted into an equation?

Consideration of ethical behavior derails a discussion of how to appropriately dispense justice??

Words cannot express the deep irony of and the incredible humor I find in your devotion to science.

<SNIP>

Don't care. I'm taking about taking (hypothetically) the human error out of the judicial system. Replace judges and juries with a computerized adjudication system (simplistically speaking).

We already have laws in place that would need to be coded in conjunction with the penalties.

But the judicial system is founded on ethics. So we are back to the same question which you keep avoiding: how does "a computerized adjudication system" make ethical decisions?

But the judicial system is founded on ethics. So we are back to the same question which you keep avoiding: how does "a computerized adjudication system" make ethical decisions?

Until the advent of the singularity, a non-human cannot make an ethical determination. Ethics cannot be defined by a constant. Therefore, a math equation could not realistically encapsulate every variable it could represent.