Quantitative Ethics?
Has quantity anything to do with ethics?
Can an action be more ethical than another according to the circumstances in which it takes place or the effect it produces?
I save someone from being hit by a car by pulling him back. Will this be considered more ethical according to whether the danger was little or big? And if I had failed to save the person, would my act be considered less ethical?
Is donating money in a fundraising event more ethical than giving money to a poor man?
Is giving 10 euros/dollars to a poor man in the street more ethical than giving only 50 cents? And if I give 5 persons one euro/dollar each, would that be considered more ethical than if I all of the 5 euros/dollars to one person only? That is, am I more ethical based on the amount of money I offer or then number of people I help?
Can quantity or form determine if an action can be considered very, moderately or slightly ethical?
Not easy to say, right? There are a lot of factors involved: how much I sacrifice, how important my actions are for the people I help, etc. Yet, I think I can say that I am a more ethical person if I'm behaving in an ethical manner on a constant basis rather than occasionally. Also we can say that a certain person is more ethical than another based on how honest, helpful, etc. each is in general. Because these cases too have to do with quantity, don't they?
On a general level though, measuring ethics and ethical behavior on some kind of scale looks very difficult if not impossible. Isn't that right?
However, maybe we have to look if such a thing as "quantitative ethics" actually exists.
For example, visiting https://ethics.utoronto.ca/quantitative-ethics/ (from the Centre for Ethics, University of Toronto), one reads:
"Quantitative ethics involves the use of quantitative methods for examining ethics-related issues in human interactions and institutions. Datasets like the Business Bribery Index (BBI) and the World Value Survey (WVS) are examples of the quantitative data that can be utilized by ethicists as a means to test their ethical hypotheses. Quantitatively-informed ethics can thus be seen as a complement to the traditional method of doing ethics through philosophical reasoning."
The above theory and methods are not so real to me to accept them as a "state of things". However, I can recognize some elements of truth in them. So why have I brought them in this discussion-to-be? Well, for discussion of course! :smile: Together with my own description of the subject.
Can an action be more ethical than another according to the circumstances in which it takes place or the effect it produces?
I save someone from being hit by a car by pulling him back. Will this be considered more ethical according to whether the danger was little or big? And if I had failed to save the person, would my act be considered less ethical?
Is donating money in a fundraising event more ethical than giving money to a poor man?
Is giving 10 euros/dollars to a poor man in the street more ethical than giving only 50 cents? And if I give 5 persons one euro/dollar each, would that be considered more ethical than if I all of the 5 euros/dollars to one person only? That is, am I more ethical based on the amount of money I offer or then number of people I help?
Can quantity or form determine if an action can be considered very, moderately or slightly ethical?
Not easy to say, right? There are a lot of factors involved: how much I sacrifice, how important my actions are for the people I help, etc. Yet, I think I can say that I am a more ethical person if I'm behaving in an ethical manner on a constant basis rather than occasionally. Also we can say that a certain person is more ethical than another based on how honest, helpful, etc. each is in general. Because these cases too have to do with quantity, don't they?
On a general level though, measuring ethics and ethical behavior on some kind of scale looks very difficult if not impossible. Isn't that right?
However, maybe we have to look if such a thing as "quantitative ethics" actually exists.
For example, visiting https://ethics.utoronto.ca/quantitative-ethics/ (from the Centre for Ethics, University of Toronto), one reads:
"Quantitative ethics involves the use of quantitative methods for examining ethics-related issues in human interactions and institutions. Datasets like the Business Bribery Index (BBI) and the World Value Survey (WVS) are examples of the quantitative data that can be utilized by ethicists as a means to test their ethical hypotheses. Quantitatively-informed ethics can thus be seen as a complement to the traditional method of doing ethics through philosophical reasoning."
The above theory and methods are not so real to me to accept them as a "state of things". However, I can recognize some elements of truth in them. So why have I brought them in this discussion-to-be? Well, for discussion of course! :smile: Together with my own description of the subject.
Comments (39)
I was pretending to answer with a "no" to your question. But the following paper surprised me indeed:
I never realised quantitative would be important towards ethics. The last year I read two books: After Virtue by Alistair McIntyre and Moral Reasoning, by Victor Grassian. Well, according to these authors what is really important inside ethics is intentionality. They share a lot of moral dilemmas explaining that the real virtue is how is your intentions to resolve such philosophical problems.
I have always been agreed with this thought until you raised some crucial questions in this thread.
Nevertheless, I think is important to check each context or situation. In my humble opinion is more ethical to give the money to a homeless rather than a foundation because I see this intention as more personal than the latter.
Situational ethics makes some such consideration. But really ethics is open to any number of models we wish to create. It's not as is if there's a god or anything out there with a set of clear rules we need to follow.
Human ethics evolve as humans and culture evolves.
We agree that generosity is a virtue. One billionaire donates $10,000 to a homeless shelter. Another billionaire with the same wealth donates $5 million to a homeless shelter. Who is being more generous? One would assume then that the latter is also the more virtuous. But intention is important too, no? What if the second billionaire is only giving away that money for tax reasons and hates homeless people? While the former loves all people and donates $20 million a year, dispersed in smaller amounts? There are many elements to consider - scale may be off set by other factors.
But why would you want to measure the ethical reach of individuals? Is there some point to this act?
Well, if you are unethical or try to be something you aren't, then I guess looking for brownie points and measuring ethical conduct as a performance sport might be the way to go.
Thank you for your response to the topic.
Quoting javi2541997
Certainly. Intenion. This is what I always bring up a the determining factor in questions related to of moral/ethical actions.
Quoting javi2541997
One can never know. It also depends on what the foundation is about. What if it's about poor people? Wouldn't giving money to it help more homeless persons? And if it is about disabled persons, sick children, etc. wouldn't giving money to it serve an equally noble purpose?
But yes, the intention here is as important as in any other case. A lot of billionaires make donations here and there with the only purpose to obtain tax reductions or pretend to care. Yet, these actions as noble and moral by many if not most people.
Thank you for your response to the topic.
Quoting Tom Storm
There's certainly a relation between them. However, the foundations and principles of the ethics system used (there are different ones) is never changed. E.g. The "major good" principle is always the same. Even the concept of "good" is the same: it refers generally and invariably to support of life, well-being, happiness etc. But the things that are considered "good" may be different from one culture to another and they can also change within the same culture.
Quoting Tom Storm
Exactly. This is what I said. But, as you mentioned, intention is important. For me it is the determining factor in considering the morality of an action.
Quoting Tom Storm
I don't. I just asked the question, if we can quantify ethics. And I brought in an article from a notable source that talks about "Quantitative ethics", which appears surprising but cannot be rejected. It's a viewpoint.
Thank you for your response to the topic.
Interesting point.
Good point and here is what some authors pretend to explain towards intentionality.
Donations itself sounds to be a good act of solidarity, right? Well... sometimes it hides bad faith in such actions as avoiding the pay of taxes as you explained very well.
So, if I make a donation not for helping homeless children but to avoid taxes it is clear that my intentions are bad or at least selfish. But if instead of donating money I build a school I guess my intentions are different and then it is more clear that I pretend to help others.
Yet many times we simply just want to choose "the most ethical" option, which depends on many things, starting from our World view and our understanding of the issue at hand. Which may differ from others as many issues are very complex and the most ethical option can be under debate.
I know this is a common view and one I have held but I think this is problematic and perhaps lacking in utility. I would say something like 'the good' is not an ethical position at all but an empty statement requiring qualification. We have to demonstrate what counts as good. Pol Pot's version of the good is at odds with yours (I hope) and this is no small thing. Enough to make a category like 'the good' to be close meaninglessness in my view until it is clarified through action. Ethics is ultimately about how one conducts oneself towards others.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
my comment deleted as irrelevant
Right. And there's another word that maybe fits here equally well as intention: motivation. Applied to ethics, it's the reason for doing an "apparently" ethical act or acting in an "apparently" ethical manner.
Anyway, I think that the subject of intention/motivation behind an ethical act or behavior is a little off-topic. And it's my fault that I have taken it up and talked about it. Here, we have to assume that ethical acts and behavior are genuine.
:up: :fire:
On a accurate/detailed level, yes. But the word "more" is quantitative, so it is relevant to the topic.
If one wants to be specific, yes. What is good for me might not be good for you. A clarification may be indeed needed, but, as I said, on a secondary level. On a primary level and in a general sense, the word "good" is commonly undestood as something that is morally right, something that supports life, well-being, happiness, etc.. And this, independently of culture, conditions, circumstances, etc. In everyday language, the word "good" is used with that meaning.
Quoting Tom Storm
This is true, but it is also too general and not particular to ethics. It covers a lot of subjects besides ethics: communication, extroversion, interest, openness, connectedness, emotional reactions, and so on. They all refer to behavior towards others.
Sure. But just because a subject shares something with others doesn't mean this shared characteristic is not a defining feature. There are many ways to define ethics, but you have almost nothing if you don't incorporate conduct towards others. My favourite definition holds that morality is principles created by humans to facilitate social cooperation in order to achieve our preferred forms of order. And this too could apply to other subjects like law or education. Do you have a preferred definition of morality?
Right. That's why I said "This is true" :smile:
Quoting Tom Storm
OK. Thanks for sharing.
Quoting Tom Storm
Ethics for me are based on gratest good for the greatest number. (I have already explained earlier how I use the word "good".) I have talked a lot about that in other discussions. The following two comments of mine are more extensive and detailed (although I have much more to say on the subject):
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/674768
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/645668.
If 1 life is valuable then surely n lives are more valuable (n > 1).
Schopenhauer disagrees. You'll find the relevant quotes on Wikipedia, either in the Schopenhauer page or in post-Schopenhauer pessimism page.
It does leave a bad taste in the mouth to kill the heavy man to save 5 others (re Trolley problem).
I'm not sure about your position: Do you mean it is better to kill 5 persons tied up on the tracks than to kill one person on the side track?
In any case, I believe that the driver's instinctive reaction will be to divert the train. And this, because, independently of the number of persons involved, if he does nothing --and assuming that breaking won't help-- it is certain that the persons on the tracks will be kiiled, or some of them, or heavily injured, whereas if he diverts the train, it is not certain that the man on the side track will be killed or even injured (he is not tied up, so he can jump at the the last second and be just injured or even escape harm).
My position on these matters is: "Avoid major damage or harm".
(As for Schopenhauer, I left him behind about 50 years ago and never came back. Never of my taste.)
:up: :fire:
If a problem is viewed as entirely a quantifiable one then it is not really being viewed with any kind of ethical tilt. This is something common to ethics where the individual will strive almost endlessly to reduce any problem to number in order to abstain from any sense of responsibility if the results of actions are unwelcome.
The societal norm is an ever present prison on any decision we make and it is an ever shfting prison. For this reason alone drawing any conclusion with certainty is somewhat foolish. The moral here being the best thing to do is be willing to except the fallout yet try to avoid as best you can to produce a fallout whilst simultaneously knowing soemm kind of fallout is inevitable at some point in your life.
If you refer to "Avoid major damage or harm" as having shortcomings, what is a counter or other position that hasn't? Or, if you like, what do you propose as having more advantages and/or strengths?
Quoting Agent Smith
What is "the true nature of ethics"?
Thank you for your participation to the topic.
Quoting I like sushi
This is not clear to me. Can you give an example?
I never said that "avoid major damage or harm" is flawed. I quite like the negative formulation - instead of do good, we should not do bad - for the simple reason that the choices presented to us isn't good or bad but bad or worse. :snicker:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
God knows!
I know. That's why I asked if your referred to it. I needed a point of reference.
Quoting Agent Smith
This doesn't help much to chose a place for my vacations! :grin:
Quoting Agent Smith
Well, ask him! :smile:
Right. We can't know about the nature of ethics, as we can't regarding freedom, mind, consciousness and a lot of other concepts.
Why not? I thought vacationing had to be within one's means.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I'm afraid I'm not qualified enough to commune with the divine.
:smile:
:smile:
What is mathematics?
Before we discovered/invented math, we were like folks with poor eyesight - everything was a blur/pixelated and if one studies pre-math texts, it should be evident. Math, a precision tool, was like a pair of corrective lenses which we duely mounted on our noses and we could finally see ... well. Math helps in differentiating what was once undifferentiable. Oui monsieur?
I agree, but what has math to do in here? Because we speak about quantitative stuff? Well, I love Math and I was alwyas very good at it, so I don't want demote it to the level of simple arithmetic, in fact lower than that as far as this topic is concerned! :smile:
BTW, I don't think it is correct to say that Math has been "discovered". So, I'll keep the "invented" part only. :smile: (Re: "Before we discovered/invented math")
(1) What is "good"? How is "goodness" to be defined?
(2) Ought we to be good? Is there such a thing as a moral imperative to be good?
Sorry to harp on the obvious like that but, as the ancients realised, you must start by defining your basic terms and, with luck, you'll find that many of the questions answer themselves.
The relevance of mathematics would be fairly obvious to anybody who had taken Philosophy 100 in Utilitiarian ethics. But please don't underestimate the philosophy of arithmetic. It is at least as problematic as the philosophy of any other branch of mathematics, precisely because it deals with the most primitive or elemental levels of the science.
I just had a look at the subject of felicific calculus in Wiki and found Bentham's "algorithm" quite interesting, I don't know if anyone has ever examined the subject of "pleasure" in such a detailed manner. And, if we consider that pleasure is closely connected to ethics, then we can say that this "algotithm" applies also to ethics, in general.
However, this is only an effort to "quantify" pleasure, and by extension, ethics.
An algoritithm involves computation --that's why I used the word within quotation marks-- and quantification involves measurement. And none of the factors involved in the formula --except for duration-- are measurable, at least, not to a sastisfactory degree. So, the model presented by Bentham is a method of evaluating actions on a relative and quite general basis. And even then, it is quite difficult to compare two actions in order to judge which is exactly more ethical (or unethical) than the other. We can only have an idea about this. So, in fact, this method or model can only serve as a description of the factors involved in the identification of an action in terms of pleasure or ethics.
Anyway, this was a great contribution to the topic, @Agent Smith. :up:
It's simplistic arithmetic with poorly defined variables. I wonder if it's used in economics, the Dismal Science? Tononi's Phi function is a far more recent and much more complicated attempt to apply math to loose or badly understood features of existence, like how much consciousness might a certain stone possess? The level of sophistication of the latter compared to the former is staggering, but even so not convincing.
My own brief exposure to my math used as a tool in the social sciences is a recent paper on decision making in groups, where a result in the arid but highly sophisticated realm of complex analysis was appropriated and rephrased in those psychological terms, to questionable ends.
I was wondering when you'd reply. Good assessment report as far as I'm concerned. The mathematics is simple, too simple? :chin:
How would you have approached the subject if you were consulted by Bentham?
I would suggest he consult with a statistician or data analyst and do surveys and polls or watch human behavior and see where that might take him. Applying hard math to a soft problem is usually ill-advised. :cool: