This is a blog comment I'm about to post on my philosophy module's blog. I have problems posting it now. But I'll post it later. The topic was 'How ethics isn't like Math'. Underlying Socrates's (we're doing Plato's books now) many questions, he seems to have a notion that there is a guideline to decide what we should do. I'll probably edit this over time to improve it. I like this topic, but I'm thinking about this excessively. So posting it up here will sort of achieve a closure to this train of thought. Haha. (:
--
To respond one by one to everyone’s sometimes similar contentions would be a very long read. So here’s an improved proposition for Plato that defends against some of the limits of Math suggested. Some parts still repeat, but in different ways. I really think ethics is a complicated Math problem, and the problem is not the limits of Math, but the limit of our ability to actually convert it into Math. We are in the process of figuring out f(x) as we debate on the limits of justice/family-piety/etc. But, we don't actually have the true f(x), and that’s why we rely on both our left and right brain.
There is an absolute truth, like the most accurate ethics math function f(x). Just as Math is a tool, ethics is a complicated math function, a tool that guides us to live fulfilling lives.
Math is multi-dimensional, it can process complex questions and give complex answers. Life is a math problem with (maybe) infinite variables. Think f(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,…). It has many variables, many different weights, many different inter-linked functions for many different principles and context. It’s complicated. And the answer can be complex too. In a situation where a=2,b<20,qr>9, abs<-200, then the answer is to output x=900, y=232, z=90. The real thing is even more complex though, and the numbers can represent defined events. We figure out the formula in the same way we figure out how to solve any math problem, or how to build a building. When the building eventually collapses, when we become sad/depressed for too long, we know something’s wrong with our formula. And when the brain is able to find better answers, it liberates people, and makes people happy. (So people pursue the ‘truth’.)
[Issues addressed: Cataclysm of using numbers, what questions to ask, how we formulate f(x), how we know f(x) is right]
This f(x) can be broken down to something fundamental that we can all agree upon, like (as Hazel suggested) the fundamental concept of counting. Complicated math is hard to understand, and finding out f(x)exactly is harder than rocket science, but with experience and testing, we can estimate answers, and estimate what f(x) is. When our f(x) estimate is different from someone else’s, there is a contradiction, an inconsistency. So we argue to find out what went wrong. As we argue and compromise, hopefully we get closer to the truth. It is like taking multiple readings to get the true length the piece of a rope.
[Issues addressed: Inexistence of universal agreement, how we determine f(x), changing religions]
The heart, the gut feelings are affected by the brain which (subconsciously) controls hormones. The brain, our supercomputer that has an estimate of what f(x) is, based on programming by teachers like experience/family/friends/study, and is able to give a rough estimate (a range maybe?) of f(x) when it is an ethical question. The brain gives an exact answer for f(x) when it is asked a normal-math/plain-logic question.
[Issues addressed: ethics as an instinct as much as logic is, heart and soul vs. cold hard logic, how we get f(x)]
The math solution people (including ourselves) have might be far from the truth, due to corruption/spoiling of our supercomputers/lack of updates. It is not like simple logic, where we can understand the f(x) that we formulated. So sometimes, when we don’t understand how to solve it, we trust someone else to help us.
[Issues addressed: People’s role, why people act unethically/badly]
Let's assume that at the action borderline, let’s say, f(x)=0, it doesn’t matter what we do really. When we obviously know what to do, it’s like when f(1000)=100000 > 0. If split between two actions, maybe f(x) <> 0 means we should do action B. When the estimate of f(x) is somewhere at the border line, we become confused/sometimes make less than good decisions. (But it is okay, we can forgive ourselves because we did not really know. We can live with estimates.)
[Issues addressed: why people act unethically/badly, ethical dilemmas]
More limitations can come up, but I think there is always a mathematical way of looking at it.
