Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy


Trayvon Martin Case

Debating with the enemy


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-07-2012, 11:45 AM   #511
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,544
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
Some here have maintained that ethical decisions can be expressed as mathematical equations.
Really? Who?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
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, you remind me of a character named Simon Fisher, possibly the character was based on you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
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.
RedskinRat is offline  

Advertisements
Old 06-07-2012, 12:27 PM   #512
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 10,288
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

^
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.
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.

Last edited by Lotus; 06-07-2012 at 12:35 PM.
Lotus is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 01:03 PM   #513
MVP
 
mooby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NoVa
Age: 25
Posts: 11,754
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

I suddenly realized what this argument reminds me of:

mooby is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 01:34 PM   #514
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,544
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
^
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 (Trayvon Martin Case)
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.
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 01:52 PM   #515
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,544
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Mooby, it's not even looking that well organized or articulate.
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 01:53 PM   #516
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 10,288
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
<SNIP>
__________________________________________________ _______
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin (Trayvon Martin Case)
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.
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.
Lotus is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 02:31 PM   #517
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,544
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
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.
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 02:37 PM   #518
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,395
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
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.
__________________
"We're very sorry, but we're too permissive to allow your sort".
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 02:48 PM   #519
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 10,288
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
<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?
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.
Lotus is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 02:53 PM   #520
Robert Griffin III
 
Monksdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Leesburg, VA
Age: 33
Posts: 1,495
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
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.
__________________
Robert Griffin III
Monksdown is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 02:57 PM   #521
Robert Griffin III
 
Monksdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Leesburg, VA
Age: 33
Posts: 1,495
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monksdown View Post
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.
Hence, a computer program cannot currently adjudicate.
__________________
Robert Griffin III
Monksdown is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 02:58 PM   #522
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,544
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
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?
Then we already have ethics in place from which to model the decisions with supporting arguments pro and con.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monksdown View Post
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.
Technological singularity is about to happen. Challenge accepted! (But not by me personally)
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 03:02 PM   #523
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,395
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monksdown View Post
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.
Apostasy!!! Heresy!!! How dare you throw logic in the face of science. The Algorithm will save us from ourselves and only through the Algorithm can perfection be achieved.

(simplistically speaking that is).
__________________
"We're very sorry, but we're too permissive to allow your sort".
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 03:12 PM   #524
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,544
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
A law and its breach can be converted into an equation?
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
Consideration of ethical behavior derails a discussion of how to appropriately dispense justice??
It wasn't a part of my original point (which was this: It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing. No human bias.), feel free to try to continue to force it though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
Words cannot express the deep irony of and the incredible humor I find in your devotion to science.
Yes, but you can probably stare at your belly button and be enthralled judging by your posts.
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 03:23 PM   #525
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 10,288
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
Then we already have ethics in place from which to model the decisions with supporting arguments pro and con.



Technological singularity is about to happen. Challenge accepted! (But not by me personally)
So I must ask the same question yet again because you keep avoiding it: Which ethical theory do we already have "in place" from which we can "model the decisions" without controversy or, in your claim, without bias?

This is a basic Ethics 101 question. Certainly, since you claim to have a superior system of justice, you can answer an Ethics 101 question about the foundations of such a system.
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.
Lotus is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.33028 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25