Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (9604)	11/9/2010 4:26:29 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

I am unable to sharply define "well-being", "regard" and "corruption". Since I cannot reduce these to quantities that can be given an even remotely logical (or mathematical) treatment, I don't see the mountain. I am reminded that John Stuart Mill tried to use a similar principle to develop an overarching model of a just society. The philosophical direction he founded was called "utilitarianism", and it was based on the premise that the relative morality of an act or condition could be assessed by comparing it to other alternative acts and conditions. The criterion was: How much good for how many does each act/condition produce? Initially I found the idea intriguing. But quite soon I found a structural flaw. The idea of quantifiable good is a mirage ... it has an emotional resonance, a sense that here's a good idea, but it doesn't really hold up to dispassionate scrutiny. Trying to elaborate the basic principle with practical examples becomes first a catalog, then an exponentially unwieldy body of what amounts to case law. Philosophers shouldn't be attorneys! (Though the vice versa might be nice....) In my opinion, a convincing moral law would be resistant to erosion by those who are predisposed to oppose it. That would make it unique in human wisdom and experience. cheers js