I'm looking to build a list of reasons to agree or disagree... This is all I have so far: Please help!

We should give more points to conclusions that have higher perceived ethicality of their methods and results

It's important for people to decide how strongly they support these conclusions and to consistently apply these rules. Often people are very flexible with their logic. For instance they will say that the ends justify their means when it supports their conclusion, but they will reject this line of argument when it opposes this argument.

Computers can help us with this. People can give a score to a particular philosophical question, a computer could then run the math, and tell you, based on those assumptions, which conclusions are more valid. This can help people be consistent with their thinking, and find logical fallacies

The idea score should give more points to conclusions that have a consensus that the means (methods used to obtain the result) are ethical

There are mathematical ways we can give more points to conclusions that have higher perceived ethicality of their methods and results

For people who are good at math, this equation could be more formally represented with the fallowing equation and definitions.
Definitions
·         PES=Perceived Ethics Score: This can be added directly to the conclusion score, or we could use a multiplier on the ethics score, before adding the ethics score to the overall conclusion score.
·         Means
o   EMA (Ethical Means Asked) = The number of people who gave a score to the ethics of the means (or method) of a proposal.
o   EMEMA (Ethical Means): The score an individual gives a proposal for how ethical the means (or method) are (between 1 and 10).
o   C = A constant, such as 5, so that if 100% of a group of 50 people agree, than it will carry more weight
o   10 = This is not required, and could be removed if we ask people to pick a number between 0 and 1. People may think this is weird, and so using 10 will help the math represent the average score being a number between 0 and 1, so that if the average score was 8, our equation would give us .8, or a validity of 80%.
·         Ends
o   EEA = The number of people who gave a score to the ethics of the ends (or results) of a proposal.
o   EEEEA (Ethical Ends): The score an individual gives a proposal for how ethical the ends (or results) are (between 1 and 10).
o   EMA (Ethical Means Asked) = The number of people who gave a score to the ethics of the means (or method) of a proposal.
o   10 = See above
o   EEJ (Ethical Ends Justify):  The percentage of people who think that the ends (goals) justify the means (methods).

There are mathematical ways we can give more points to conclusions that have more reasons to believe they have ethical methods and results

I propose the basic Ethics Method score outlined below:
 

However, once this is working, we could tweak it a bit. It may be slightly more complicated, but I believe will give us better results.

Many beliefs have explicit actions. For instance, Barack Obama proposed that "we raise taxes for families who make more than $250,000 a year". This statement is a single action proposal. However, a single action can have many related ethical arguments.  For instance we can investigate the broader ethical question of a national income tax, or the ethics of a progressive national income tax, or the ethics of a specific national income tax that does not take into account cost of living, or family size.

Of course, if you familiarize yourself with my other equations, you will notice that I already count reasons to agree or disagree with each proposal. So for this item, we could just submit the argument about the ethics of a conclusion, as a standard argument. However, I see extra value of tagging an argument as a specific ethical argument that is related to either the method or the result.

Because an argument about the ethics of any of these sub-arguments, can also have arguments about their validity, we need to re-introduce the "Linkage score", and the use of n to represent the number of steps the sub-argument is away from the conclusion that we are currently giving a score:
 

·         n = number of "steps" the current arguments is removed from conclusion

We can use algebra to represent each term, and make it look a little more mathematical, with the below formula:
·         n:                     Number of "steps" the current arguments is removed from conclusion
·         AAEMn,i)/n:                  Arguments that Agree that a proposal has Ethical Methods. When n=1 we are looking at arguments that are used directly to support the belief that a conclusion's methods are ethical. The 2nd subscript is "i". This is used to indicate that we total all the reasons to agree. So when n=1, we could have 5 "i's" indicating there are 5 reasons to agree. These would be labeled A(1,1), A(1,2), A(1,3), A(1,4), and A(1,5). N on the bottom indicates that reasons to agree with reasons to agree only contribute ½ a point to the overall conclusion. Thus reasons to agree with reasons to agree with reasons to agree would only contribute 1/3 of a point, and so on.
·         ADEM(n,j)/n                  Arguments that Disagree that a proposal has Ethical Methods. Ds are reasons to disagree, and work the same as As but the number of reasons to disagree, are subtracted from the conclusion score. Therefore, if you have more reasons to disagree, you will have a negative score.  "J" is used, just to indicate that each reason to disagree is independent of a reason to agree.
·         The denominator is the total number of reasons to agree or disagree. This normalizes the equation, resulting the conclusion score (CS) representing the total percentage of reasons that agree. The conclusion score will range between -100% and 100% (or -1 and +1)
  
Many beliefs have explicit actions. For instance, Barack Obama proposed that we raise taxes for families who make more than $250,000 a year. This has unstated results. This may be somewhat complicated because people may disagree if a proposal really requires particular actions.

There are computer programming ways we can give more points to conclusions that have higher perceived ethicality of their methods and results, or more reasons to believe they are ethical.


Most all equations can be implemented on computers. All we have to do is build a forum that collects the above data. Then it is a simple matter of applying the above equations.


No comments:

Post a Comment