ChrispenEvan said:
Change my mind.
I agree with that. Particularly as regards to morality.
Morality can be expressed in figures. Bentham’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus
Any morality not expressed in figures is merely opinion.
mollwollfumble said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Change my mind.
I agree with that. Particularly as regards to morality.
Morality can be expressed in figures. Bentham’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus
Any morality not expressed in figures is merely opinion.
>Any morality not expressed in figures is merely opinion.
that’s wrong, and you’ve used the word merely in that way that wants me to give you a good spanking
transition said:
mollwollfumble said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Change my mind.
I agree with that. Particularly as regards to morality.
Morality can be expressed in figures. Bentham’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus
Any morality not expressed in figures is merely opinion.
>Any morality not expressed in figures is merely opinion.
that’s wrong, and you’ve used the word merely in that way that wants me to give you a good spanking
My opinion on this thread can be expressed in numbers (e.g. care factor = zero).
Therefore my opinion is science.
mollwollfumble said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Change my mind.
I agree with that. Particularly as regards to morality.
Morality can be expressed in figures. Bentham’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus
Any morality not expressed in figures is merely opinion.
But does it mean figures as in numbers or figures as in graphs and diagrams? Because diagrams don’t necessarily need to have numbers.
buffy said:
mollwollfumble said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Change my mind.
I agree with that. Particularly as regards to morality.
Morality can be expressed in figures. Bentham’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus
Any morality not expressed in figures is merely opinion.
But does it mean figures as in numbers or figures as in graphs and diagrams? Because diagrams don’t necessarily need to have numbers.
Figures as in spectres
dv said:
buffy said:
mollwollfumble said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Change my mind.
I agree with that. Particularly as regards to morality.
Morality can be expressed in figures. Bentham’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus
Any morality not expressed in figures is merely opinion.
But does it mean figures as in numbers or figures as in graphs and diagrams? Because diagrams don’t necessarily need to have numbers.
Figures as in spectres
figures as in hieroglyphics sorry we mean glyphs sorry we mean characters sorry we mean letters sorry we mean language oh wait
Tamb said:
transition said:
mollwollfumble said:I agree with that. Particularly as regards to morality.
Morality can be expressed in figures. Bentham’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus
Any morality not expressed in figures is merely opinion.
>Any morality not expressed in figures is merely opinion.
that’s wrong, and you’ve used the word merely in that way that wants me to give you a good spanking
If it can only be expressed in figures IMO it is not worth expressing.
you need start with a proximal? working concept of (even a native ‘feel’ would do), and work with various other concepts
i’d agree with moll if his proposition more asserted assumptions are required and necessary for the work, and large part of the work is in interrogating the assumptions, not to eliminate assumptions but to highlight the importance of them, if his proposition more went to the level of abstraction regard that
so morality starts with philosophy, or metaphysics really
an obvious example of moll’s proposition being wrong is that the required operating space for a person to do their thing often remains unmeasured and unmeasurable, it’s a space of potentials, substantially unshared, it’s a space
technically you could have a morality that was entirely measured, yet involved none of the above much at all
a good measure of the existence of morality might more be that individuals exhibited some esoteric knowledge, metaphysics about their experience of world and self
an absence of such esoteria (i’ll call it, though properly probably esoterica is the correct term), anyway an absence might indicate reduced morality, reduced capacity for thinking about it, or even moral decline
moll’s used the word merely, applied of opinion, to mean nothing more than, it’s hard not to consider it might lend to dismissiveness and worse, but consider it applied of the real world to a developing child, it would be potentially brutal I would think
i’d suggest morality very much involves negotiated opinions, and that the negotiated opinions can be that they remain largely separated
mollwollfumble said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Change my mind.
I agree with that. Particularly as regards to morality.
Morality can be expressed in figures. Bentham’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus
Any morality not expressed in figures is merely opinion.
Observation is science. Not everything can be measured.
PermeateFree said:
mollwollfumble said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Change my mind.
I agree with that. Particularly as regards to morality.
Morality can be expressed in figures. Bentham’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus
Any morality not expressed in figures is merely opinion.
Observation is science. Not everything can be measured.
True. By the character length metric, not everything has a measure of 14.
