An efficient objective definition for morality is as the relative measure for likelihood of social retribution. This definition allows for the moral opinion of novel behaviors. In this context retribution will clearly vary inversely with morality. Also taken into account is the directing of perception by means of engineered public relations. This speaks to resolving the immorality of, say, a brain-computer interface by including the intervening step of technological research into restoring function to those with nervous system disorders. While this framing clearly leads to the same end, it enjoys a higher moral value thus increasing social acceptence, funding opportunities, and insulation from retribution.
Since game theory propounds cooperation to carry a greater utility over competition, qualifying morality requires the quantification of local values (i.e. Gallup polls) and correlating them with component factored values of a given behavior.
3.14.2012
Absolutely opposed to Absolutism
The widely held philosophy of Absolutism is impossible for a fully rational agent to believe (sic). Truly it's detractions have recently formed a trend towards it's diametric alternate, that of relativism. As we shall see absolutism works on medium-term calculations utilizing medium-term measurements. However as our collective capabilities progress relativism seems to be emerging as the superior view to take.
Nowhere is this argument more potent than in the field of physics. The Newtonian concept of space as an absolute reference frame that exists independent of the bodies it contains survived for over 200 years. The Einsteinian dual theories of relativism only bested the absolutist philosophy at the limits of modern accuracies for measurement.
Absolute zero is a defined value for a thermal minimum, however nothing has actually been measured to be at absolute zero. How then have we defined it as such? Given a sample of a gas, if you hold pressure constant and plot temp vs volume, it'll make the straight line. If you extrapolate line to a volume of zero the temperature hits at around -273K. I'm unsure how it has been ruled out that there is not another phase transition below that of solid.
No philosophy should therefore be said to be more correct than any other, but rather: that it is more useful. Utility seems to follow relativistic trends as well in that the best theory is only known to be "false" when compared to it's successor. The difficulty with using empirical evidence to validate scientific theories is that, according to the recurrant philosophical theme of the supersensible world (embodied by Plato's Cave allegory) our percepts are at best useful illusions.
Nowhere is this argument more potent than in the field of physics. The Newtonian concept of space as an absolute reference frame that exists independent of the bodies it contains survived for over 200 years. The Einsteinian dual theories of relativism only bested the absolutist philosophy at the limits of modern accuracies for measurement.
Absolute zero is a defined value for a thermal minimum, however nothing has actually been measured to be at absolute zero. How then have we defined it as such? Given a sample of a gas, if you hold pressure constant and plot temp vs volume, it'll make the straight line. If you extrapolate line to a volume of zero the temperature hits at around -273K. I'm unsure how it has been ruled out that there is not another phase transition below that of solid.
No philosophy should therefore be said to be more correct than any other, but rather: that it is more useful. Utility seems to follow relativistic trends as well in that the best theory is only known to be "false" when compared to it's successor. The difficulty with using empirical evidence to validate scientific theories is that, according to the recurrant philosophical theme of the supersensible world (embodied by Plato's Cave allegory) our percepts are at best useful illusions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)