Moral luck... a solution?

[GrowingSmaller]

List of unsolved problems in philosophy - Wikipedia

The problem of moral luck is that some people are born into, live within, and experience circumstances that seem to change their moral culpability when all other factors remain the same.

For instance, a case of circumstantial moral luck: a poor person is born into a poor family, and has no other way to feed himself so he steals his food. Another person, born into a very wealthy family, does very little but has ample food and does not need to steal to get it. Should the poor person be more morally blameworthy than the rich person? After all, it is not his fault that he was born into such circumstances, but a matter of "luck".

My solution, there are multiple (non arbitrary) solutions, based on network flow diagram configuration.



It doesn't actually provide a 1-Dimensional unique solution to "moral luck", but rather analyses the multi-Dimensional decision making process we need to initiate in order to gain perspective, any perspective.

To be an animal you have to have DNA. To be a moralist you must have a system. Not the system, but a system. Like this:

And how do we analyse that, "solve" and "evaluate" that... particular "solution"? How do we disect that animal? Via super-adding more decision making flow networks. i.e. Further network driven animations.

Other than that, there's no system to discuss, and no result to analyse, no conception to work with. All systems and evaluations of systems, are just that, systems.

So in politics etc, the citation of principles iz a partisan process.

There are no results outside of systems of networks, and all so -called "self evident" principles (no free lunch etc) at a political level are just moves in a constructed socio-political game, for better or for worse for the agents involved in some way or other. Better and worse being debated within further wig wearing systemic constructs.

"Who, me?"

A simplified model of the predicament (see diagram at bottom of post):

Green nodes = input 1.:

a)Poor person top.
b)Rich person bottom.

Blue nodes = input two.
1) mitigating circumstances
2) universality of law
3) preservation of human welfare
4) preservation of legal-judicial mechanisms

Yellow node = output (a1, a2 .... a8) or (b1, b2...b8).

Outputs a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, and a8 etc represent basic one - path, one - weighting possibilities

eg. a has more case for mitigation than b, principle 1.

How is that justified, by adding principle 3 maybe - the preservation of human welfare...


So there are many more additional possibilities, depending on weighting, number and preference given to blue nodes in a multi path - system. (a1+2 ..... a1+3, a 1+4 etc.)

 

[quatona]

List of unsolved problems in philosophy - Wikipedia






My solution, there are multiple (non arbitrary) solutions, based on network flow diagram configuration.



It doesn't actually provide a 1-Dimensional unique solution to "moral luck", but rather analyses the multi-Dimensional decision making process we need to initiate in order to gain perspective, any perspective.

To be an animal you have to have DNA. To be a moralist you must have a system. Not the system, but a system. Like this:

And how do we analyse that, "solve" and "evaluate" that... particular "solution"? How do we disect that animal? Via super-adding more decision making flow networks. i.e. Further network driven animations.

Other than that, there's no system to discuss, and no result to analyse, no conception to work with. All systems and evaluations of systems, are just that, systems.

So in politics etc, the citation of principles iz a partisan process.

There are no results outside of systems of networks, and all so -called "self evident" principles (no free lunch etc) at a political level are just moves in a constructed socio-political game, for better or for worse for the agents involved in some way or other. Better and worse being debated within further wig wearing systemic constructs.

"Who, me?"

A simplified model of the predicament (see diagram at bottom of post):

Green nodes = input 1.:

a)Poor person top.
b)Rich person bottom.

Blue nodes = input two.
1) mitigating circumstances
2) universality of law
3) preservation of human welfare
4) preservation of legal-judicial mechanisms

Yellow node = output (a1, a2 .... a8) or (b1, b2...b8).

Outputs a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, and a8 etc represent basic one - path, one - weighting possibilities

eg. a has more case for mitigation than b, principle 1.

How is that justified, by adding principle 3 maybe - the preservation of human welfare...


So there are many more additional possibilities, depending on weighting, number and preference given to blue nodes in a multi path - system. (a1+2 ..... a1+3, a 1+4 etc.)

Is that how God will do it on judgement day?

 

[ExodusMe]

I don't think most people would agree moral luck is an issue. The definition provided is:

The problem of moral luck is that some people are born into, live within, and experience circumstances that seem to change their moral culpability when all other factors remain the same.

Most people would not agree that circumstances change a persons moral culpability. Whether you are rich or poor stealing is wrong. God's judgement may differ on what the person stole, but it will not differ on the circumstances of the individual.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I don't think most people would agree moral luck is an issue. The definition provided is:

Most people would not agree that circumstances change a persons moral culpability. Whether you are rich or poor stealing is wrong. God's judgement may differ on what the person stole, but it will not differ on the circumstances of the individual.

Well I thought you were going to say the opposite, that circumstances do affect culpability. Fior insatance if you've been brought up in a mafia family, and taught that violence is a soluition, then you're more likely to think that way due to socialisaiton. Its not personality that makes it so, or bad character, but outside influences. Then there are peer pressure and authority pressure experiments in social psychology, which show that people can be influenced to do things which theyd normally resist.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Brain Structure Corresponds to Personality
"Personalities come in all kinds. Now psychological scientists have found that the size of different parts of people’s brains correspond to their personalities; for example, conscientious people tend to have a bigger lateral prefrontal cortex, a region of the brain involved in planning and controlling behavior.

Psychologists have worked out that all personality traits can be divided into five factors, commonly called the Big Five: conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, and openness/intellect. Colin DeYoung at the University of Minnesota and colleagues wanted to know if these personality factors correlated with the size of structures in the brain."

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Is that how God will do it on judgement day?

"
"And when the scrolls (of the deeds of mankind) are spread".
The term /suhuf/ is the plural form of the term /sahifah/ meaning 'a thing spread open like a face, or pages of a book; a book on which something is written'.

In the Hereafter, the records are spread in front of their owners to view, read and count the deeds themselves, Surah Isra, No. 17, verse 14 says:

"Read thine (own) record: sufficient is thy soul this day to make out an account against thee."
It is also open before the eyes of others; that which is a praise for the good‑doers and a pain and punishment for the astray evildoers."

From here->
Surah Takwir, Chapter 81

 

[Dave-W]

Colin DeYoung at the University of Minnesota and colleagues wanted to know if these personality factors correlated with the size of structures in the brain."

Interesting read. But they seem to jump to the conclusion that the size of the structures drive the personality.

But could it be that the personality uses some portions of the brain more than others - RESULTING in them being larger?

 

[ExodusMe]

Well I thought you were going to say the opposite, that circumstances do affect culpability. Fior insatance if you've been brought up in a mafia family, and taught that violence is a soluition, then you're more likely to think that way due to socialisaiton. Its not personality that makes it so, or bad character, but outside influences. Then there are peer pressure and authority pressure experiments in social psychology, which show that people can be influenced to do things which theyd normally resist.

That is to make the perpetrator the victim of their circumstances. You are a victim of moral relativism. Christian's believe in objective moral value and duties, which means that God will judge all sins no matter the circumstance of the individual.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

That is to make the perpetrator the victim of their circumstances. You are a victim of moral relativism. Christian's believe in objective moral value and duties, which means that God will judge all sins no matter the circumstance of the individual.

Just to be clear:

If a person were brainwashed into killing someone, that person would be just as responsible as someone who wasn't brainwashed?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Interesting read. But they seem to jump to the conclusion that the size of the structures drive the personality.

But could it be that the personality uses some portions of the brain more than others - RESULTING in them being larger?

Not sure but it would seem like a pretty basic error.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

That is to make the perpetrator the victim of their circumstances. You are a victim of moral relativism. Christian's believe in objective moral value and duties, which means that God will judge all sins no matter the circumstance of the individual.

Yep that's a good reminder too. I never believed in morals and a Christian friend accused me of nihilism and relativism. Then I after had a religious experience, I have never been so confident in my own ways.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Just to be clear:

If a person were brainwashed into killing someone, that person would be just as responsible as someone who wasn't brainwashed?

I think maybe a set standard has an effect in the longer twerm of bringing into line, social organisation wise. Whereas a relative one might accentuate personal justice over social justice.

 

[Paradoxum]

I don't see why this is an issue. For me theft can be justified sometimes. This only seem to be an issue if you think theft is always wrong.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

For me if something is not immoral by definition ( i.e. tautology), there are exceptions to the rule.

Not necessarily here and now, but in some imaginable predicament.

Then someone says "what about rape"?

Rape is always wrong.... sounds like a good intuitive principle.

But if I say "swans are never orange" its not true by definition. In some case somewhere there could be an orange swan. Like in David Lewis' modal realism.

I am by no means a callous person, but what is the difference from a purely logical perspective?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I imagined a scenario where rape is ok. Robots take over, outlaw all forms of human consent because we're too influenced by hormones. Making all sex rape.

 

[quatona]

But if I say "swans are never orange" its not true by definition.

...unless you define it so.

 

[Khalliqa]

List of unsolved problems in philosophy - Wikipedia






My solution, there are multiple (non arbitrary) solutions, based on network flow diagram configuration.



It doesn't actually provide a 1-Dimensional unique solution to "moral luck", but rather analyses the multi-Dimensional decision making process we need to initiate in order to gain perspective, any perspective.

To be an animal you have to have DNA. To be a moralist you must have a system. Not the system, but a system. Like this:

And how do we analyse that, "solve" and "evaluate" that... particular "solution"? How do we disect that animal? Via super-adding more decision making flow networks. i.e. Further network driven animations.

Other than that, there's no system to discuss, and no result to analyse, no conception to work with. All systems and evaluations of systems, are just that, systems.

So in politics etc, the citation of principles iz a partisan process.

There are no results outside of systems of networks, and all so -called "self evident" principles (no free lunch etc) at a political level are just moves in a constructed socio-political game, for better or for worse for the agents involved in some way or other. Better and worse being debated within further wig wearing systemic constructs.

"Who, me?"

A simplified model of the predicament (see diagram at bottom of post):

Green nodes = input 1.:

a)Poor person top.
b)Rich person bottom.

Blue nodes = input two.
1) mitigating circumstances
2) universality of law
3) preservation of human welfare
4) preservation of legal-judicial mechanisms

Yellow node = output (a1, a2 .... a8) or (b1, b2...b8).

Outputs a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, and a8 etc represent basic one - path, one - weighting possibilities

eg. a has more case for mitigation than b, principle 1.

How is that justified, by adding principle 3 maybe - the preservation of human welfare...


So there are many more additional possibilities, depending on weighting, number and preference given to blue nodes in a multi path - system. (a1+2 ..... a1+3, a 1+4 etc.)

I don't understand your solution.. could you break it down in layman's.. wait.. break it down so a five year old could understand it?

RE: Moral luck being a problem.. The problem is the residual multi offense of a system that has not solved the problem of poverty.. solve it by creating a system that yields the least residual offense? In other words a solid system doesn't produce trickle down harm..