Thank you for your participation to the topic.

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. — I like sushi

This is not clear to me. Can you give an example?

shortcomings of utilitarianism which is the poster child of quantitative ethics as defined by the OP — Agent Smith

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?

there's something nonquantitative about morality but this could be an illusion of course, an illusion generated by misunderstanding the true nature of ethics. — Agent Smith

What is "the true nature of ethics"?

It does leave a bad taste in the mouth to kill the heavy man to save 5 others (re Trolley problem). — Agent Smith

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.)

But just because a subject shares something with others doesn't mean this shared characteristic is not a defining feature. — Tom Storm

Right. That's why I said "This is true" :smile:

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. — Tom Storm

OK. Thanks for sharing.

Do you have a preferred definition of morality? — 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.

I would say something like 'the good' is not an ethical position at all but an empty statement requiring qualification. — Tom Storm

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.

Ethics is ultimately about how one conducts oneself towards others. — 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.

You don't get just an answer of one action being more ethical than another, but just how much "more ethical" it is — ssu

On a accurate/detailed level, yes. But the word "more" is quantitative, so it is relevant to the topic.

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.

Thank you for your response to the topic.

Interesting point.

Thank you for your response to the topic.

Human ethics evolve as humans and culture evolves. — 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.

There are many elements to consider — 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.

But why would you want to measure the ethical reach of individuals? — 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.

what is really important inside ethics is intentionality. — javi2541997

Certainly. Intenion. This is what I always bring up a the determining factor in questions related to of moral/ethical actions.

[it] 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. — 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.

I had no idea about Ireland either.
Anyway, what I want to stress, and that's why I brought in this table, is that referendums are the main indicative feature of Democracy. I cannot think of anything else that is comparable.
Indeed, how else can one determine how much democratic a country is? Powerful unions and syndicates? They have their own interests and they don't represent the whole country. This might be a good subject for discussion. I don't know however if it fits in here. (Political philosophy?)

)

I found something quite interesting regarding referendums in Europe:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2022/729358/EPRS_IDA(2022)729358_EN.pdf
I have extracted the table showing the number of referendums and constitutional provisions performed in European countries (1957-2016):

Source: Cheneval F., Ferrin M., (2018) Referendums in the European Union: Defective by birth?, Journal of Common Market Studies, Volume 56, Number 5. pp. 1178-1194.

Would you believe that Belgium and Germany have not carried out a single referendum in the last 60 years?

On the other hand, check Denmark and Ireland. Also Non-EU Issues for Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden. all northern countries! There must be some correlation there ...

BTW, there was another referendum carried out in Greece, in 2015, to decide whether Greece should accept the bailout conditions in the country's government-debt crisis proposed jointly by the European Commission. Well, 61% of the Greeks voted against. Yet, nothing changed ... The bailout conditions were accepted nevertheless!! So, this proved to be a useless referendum!

(Lack of) Democracy reigns in in Europe!

I think the UK has always been clever in this context. They kept the Pound even when they were part of the European Union. — javi2541997

That was really clever indeed. I just saw that GBP to EUR ratio has a raising trend since 2020 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1034391/monthly-exchange-rate-gbp-eur-worldwide/)

Not that this has anything to do with the topic! :grin:
I suppose we should not extend this off-topic subject anymore ...

I personally think that in economical affairs only Germany really got a big win inside eurosystem. — javi2541997

It's always Germany that wins. The West left --if not helped-- the ex-nazi, criminal and enemy of the World country become the most powerful county in Europe! How intelligent is that?

The Euro is made just for those countries not the Mediterranean fellas — javi2541997

Certainly. Congrats to Danes and Swedes who escaped the euro trap!

Thanks.

Pray on my behalf too, because I don't use to pray myself. :smile:

I'm sorry to hear that. I hope Greece isn't damaged beyond repair and also maybe its time to pass on the torch to Europe and the US. Greece takes a well-deserved holiday, they've done enough for humanity — Agent Smith

Thanks for your concern. Indeed, Greece is a holiday place. It always has been. but that's all it is today. Yet, this is for tourists to enjoy, not the Greeks themselves. They do not even enjoy the money coming in from tourism ...
As for the "torch", I'm afraid it has already been passed to Europe and the US since a long time ago!

we never had the opportunity to vote about joining NATO or European monetary system. — javi2541997

Exactly. These are very important matters for a country, esp. because they refer to more or less permanent situations.
When I was a student in Switzerland, I was present to two referendums: 1) If people wanted to pay tolls for the maintenance of a new highway or accept an increase in gasoline and 2) Whether people wanted foreigners to stay in the country or not. This is what I can call "Democracy". People deciding on important matters of their country.

In ancient Greece, Athenians who retained political rights participated in important decisions of the city-state of Athens:


The word "Democracy" comes from Greek "Democratia", from demos (= commune) + kratein (= govern, reign). People govern. That's why Greece has been known as the cradle of Democracy.

it is a complex world and our nations clearly lost sovereignty when they joined European Union — javi2541997

I don't know what the consequences were for you of the transition from pesetas to euros. For us, they were quite bad. For a very long time, people could not realize the value of one euro and think in terms of the new currency because the old currency, drachma, equaled 1/340 = 0.003 euros! But I guess the same happened to other countries with a similar old-currency-to-euro rate.

At the very least science needs an epistemological framework to work. — Yohan

I see what you mean and your approach to the subject.

This can happen with mathematicians too, that are so used to observing the mathematical side of things, that they think everything can be reduced to math equation. — Yohan

Right. As a programmer, I don't see my work as just coding and creating programs, but mainly about finding solutions.

Here in Spain we live exactly the same situation. — javi2541997

Well, I'm not surprised. So many years under Franco ... At least you still have your Royal family. I don't know however if that helps and how much. For us it helped a lot!

I only see politics as a complex owners. Most of the people who reach powerful positions - such as a ministry - are there for private issues and affairs. — javi2541997

Exactly. This is what they are really good at.

Democracy here is an illusion. The only say in the affairs that citizens have is their vote, deciding between totally incompetent parties. This cannot be called Democracy. Democracy alss involves referendums on important matters for the country. The last referendum we had in Greece was in 1974, about keeping or abolishing the Royal Regime!! And, as a really stupid, low-IQ country, we selected the second option!

more laws for the majority" — javi2541997

I don't know even what does that mean! :grin:

It was doing so well - the epicenter of philosophy, culture, art, and so on - and now it's the sick man of Europe — Agent Smith

Roman Empire occuppation, followed by 400 years occupation and under the Ottoman yoke. Greece was living in a Middle Eastern kind of culture, when Europe was enjoying Renaissance and then Enlightenment, with artistic creation, in every field, reaching at its peak!
This is what happened to Greece.

But still, after Greece's libaration from the Ottomans, there has been a long period of considerable cultural development, with very distinguihed politicians and men of letters. Distinguihed people from Europe helped a lot in that. Aalso, the Royal Regiment that was established always maintained the quality of life to a notable level; they really cared about Greece and the Greeks. Then, there was a 7-year junta regime that has been responsible for a steep cultural downfall of the country, mainly because of the strict censorship it imposed and its total lack of cultural standards and esp. the artistic ones. And after that the Royal Regiment was abolished and things started to go downhill, esp. in the political field.

P.S. As for Pilate's jesting question "What is truth?", it referred to Jesus claiming that he was "witness to the truth", which is not plausible. So, Pilate's reaction was quite plausible. Anyway, I don't think we can ever be certain that such an event --like many others-- actually happened or whether has it been misrepresented or not, for known reasons.
Besides, if Jesus was as wise as he has been portrayed, I doubt if he had said such a thing, and if so, we don't know how it meant. I believe it's most probably a fabrication by John, like many other.

It is worthy of notice that the sentence “I smell the scent of violets” has the same content as the sentence “It is true that I smell the scent of violets.” So it seems, then, that nothing is added to the thought by my ascribing to it the property of truth. (Frege, 1918)
— link — Pie

Saying "it is true" in this case is indeed redundant. But this is a simplistic example; actually a commonplace. Like "It is true for you what it is true for you".

Truth, however, is a complex and multifaceted concept and term. That's why it reigns in philosophy since ever!

From my point of view, there's no such a thing as an absolute, objective truth. The closest to that is a commonly accepted, agreed upon truth. Most people believe --i.e. it is a common truth among them-- that moon landing is a fact, true. However, there are some people who don't, but instead believe in conspiracy theories about the subject. But, based on facts and proofs in general, as well as on reason and cohesion, we can safely say that moon landing is a fat, i.e. true.

This "process" is maybe more clear in court cases, where different "truths" --both genuine and false, supported or not by facts and argumentation-- are presented, in favor and against the accused, It is the prevailing one that, according to the jury or just the judge, determines in a court whether the accused is innocent or guilty. And sometimes, it cannot be obtained.

Nice topic and presentation. :up:

A good government is one that continuously improves the quality-of-life of its citizens. — Marvin Katz

Please tell me which country has such a government and I'm going to live there! :grin:

(I don't know what country do you live in, but in Greece, where I live, the quality-of-life of the citizens is the last thing our politicians think these days. They can hardly think even about the life of the citizens, in general! The only country that I know and I about which I can say they it is near to the above "utopia", is Sweden. But it was a long time ago. I don't know if this still holds toray.)

This is true because philosophy is like the hand, while science is like the hammer. — Yohan

Does this mean that science left alone is useless because it needs philosopy to work?
Or that the hand can do and is useful for a lot of different things while the hammer is used for a specific purpose only?

Fine. Thank you for your honest reply.

Science from DICTIONARY.COM:
"Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."

From Wikipedia:
"Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

From Science Council (https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-science/):
"Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence."

Now, about the list of sciences that is presented:

- Mathematics is generally not considered a science, although some do consider it as such. It is actually a field of knowledge including systematic treatment of magnitudes (numbers), relationships (formulas) and related forms, shapes and structures (geometry. However, it is used and is essential in Science.
- Logic is not a science. It is a system and principles of reasoning. It is used in Math and it is essential in Philosophy.
- Metaphysics a not a science. It is a branch of philosophy. (Otherwise, Philosophy itself would belong in part to science!)
- Epistemology is not a science. It is a branch of philosophy.
- Ethics is not a science. It is a system, rules and principles of human conduct. It is also a branch of philosophy.

The 10 main branches of science from https://leverageedu.com:
Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Zoology, Astronomy, Medicine, Astrophysics, Earth Sciences

***

This is a general view and summarizing of science and its branches. There are certainly other views and I, myself do not stick to it. My main point is that 4 members of the list presented in the topic as "sciences" certainly do not belong there and one is questionable at best. On the other hand, a lot of important and known sciences are missing from the list as I indicated above. In short, the list is ill-prepared.

As for the difference between Science and Philosophy as well as the boundaries, area of knowledge, purpose and responsibilities of each have long been determined and the history of their union and separation is well known. So, I believe it is useless to come back every now and then to this subject.

On the other hand, we can talk --and this is quite interesting and promising-- about how science can and is already used in philosophy. (Not the other way around.)

as children we are mentally free but physically bound.
Then by the time we get physical freedom, are mentally bound — Yohan

Nice. :up:

Glad you agree. :smile:

I think we're saying the same thing — 64bithuman

Fine.

Which kind of meaning? Are you referring to politics or democracy? — javi2541997

(Re:"sense of freedom"). Democracy can be included too. But it has really a lot of applications. It is actually a very common phrase.

Here's one of the definitions DICTIONARY.COM offers for the word "sense", which pertains esp. to the meaning I used it with:
"A more or less vague perception or impression: a sense of security."

In fact, we always live with a "sense of fredom", i.e. an idea, a feeling that we are free (regarding something). We are never totally, absolutely or actually free, are we? Freedom is something relative.

The title of the topic is interesting, but when I read the description, I was kind of disappointed. I read nothing about what I expected. But this of course happens often and is part of the "game" here.
Anyway, it looks like this is a quiz and you want to extend it beyond the realm of your class! :smile:
This is interesting too.

However, I can't find how is philosophy involved here.

Otherwise, the question itself "Why scientists shouldn't try to do philosophy" made me immediately think also of a question: "Why should or would they?" Their "business" is totally different from that of philosophers, isn't it?

Erratum: in the opening sentence, for "science", read "scientific philosophy". — alan1000

I believe it would be better if you had left as it was", because I don't think that there's such a thing like "scientific philosophy". The closest thing I can think of, linguistically-wise", is "philosophy of science", which of course is totally irrelevant.

Otherwise, the main types of philosophy are theoretical philosophy (metaphysics and epistemology), practical philosophy (ethics, social and political philosophy, aesthetics), logic, and history of philosophy. On can of course describe them in a different way, and also talk about branches of philosophy, adding "philosophy of science" in them, which I mentioned earlier

what the most common sense way to seeing these machines was. — Gregory

What machines?
I believe that you should explore and undestand well what "Artificial Intellgence" is before launching this discussion on this subject. But of course, it's too late for that. Nevertheless, it's still a good idea to do that even now.

What does it mean to give oneself purpose? — TiredThinker

I assume you mean that someone sets a purpose for me (e.g., God, parents), which indeed is not a good idea at all and most probably it won't work. Otherwise, to set a purpose for myself, a goal, something to achieve, is a very good idea.

As for the "sense of purpose" I'm not sure what does that mean. Something indefinite, illusory, fake, etc. that can think of as a purpose? A purpose is generally something specific, concrete. It's not like, e.g. freedom, which is an abtract idea and a "sense of freedom" has indeed a meaning.

I started out born as a single byte and through the years I have evolved from 8 bit to 16 bit to 32 bit and now 64 bits. — 64bithuman

:up: :grin:

in reframing strain as a form of non-suffering, — 64bithuman

I never said that strain is "a form of non-suffering" or something similar. I clearly differentiated the two.

our personal definitions of suffering are indeed malleable, particularly because we do not consider suffering with a 'point' to actually be suffering. — 64bithuman

I didn't bring up my personal definitions about suffering. I talked about different kinds of suffering. And about this, you can find a lot of data in the Web.

OK, here's a parallel: You cannot cover all the meanings of the term "sick" with a single definition or description. Why? Because it means a lot of different things. There are many kinds of "sickness".
I hope it is more clear now. If it isn't, I can't do anything more.

OK

You are welcome!

going to the gym and lifting weights will cause a person to get buff and strong through suffering. — 64bithuman

This is not suffering. It is strain (severe and/or excessive demand on the strength, resources, or abilities of someone or something). Suffering has to do with pain, distress or hardship. Strain is physical. Suffering can be both physical and mental.

You cannot find a common meaning of the term "suffering" that covers all the cases this term can be applied. Suffering from intense pain is something totally different in kind from suffering from anxiety or grief (occurred because of loss).

(BTW, has your alias name evolved from "32bithuman"? ... Sorry. I couldn't help it ...)

I disapprove of statements that use "is" to purportedly make a statement about objective reality that hides the fact that the statement better qualifies as someone's experience of objective reality. — Art48

You are right about rejecting objective reality, because it doesn't exist.