wowie6543 t1_iypl4q3 wrote on December 3, 2022 at 3:59 AM

This is redundant!

Nothing can be solved WITHOUT logic and probability!

logic and probability are basic elements of all actions and all analytics (of action).

So every method-goal relationship, every ethic problem and every goal atainment needs logic and probability to measure success.

Kants Imperatives gives you everything you need. The hypothetic gives you the logic and the categoric gives you the clear goal you need to attend.

Of course, if you use different, more then one catgegorys, you need more hypotheses. But the hypotheses are only able to do with logic and probability.

The problem if we safe one or 100 people is not a problem of not using mathmatics or using them wrong, its a problem of our moral categorys/not existing goals which are not set with alternatives and our wrong understanding of logic/rationalism.

its a failure to see moral as a right of nature. there are no rights of nature or mankind, there are only rights that we establish and take care of! goals and no goals that can be reached or not - function or not!

So its up to us and our "actual goals and logics" to set the moral standards. and so its up to us how many we safe or if we dont safe anybody and how we safe them. we dont have the the duty, only if we give us the duty!

SOCIAL Utilitarism, also called TECHNOCRACY is about the goal, to make everybody as happy as it gets. This is totally a logical and also quantifiable system. so for me, its not working to divide moral and logic. as you cant divide action and logic.

every moral action underlies the laws of logic and rational goal attainment. and every moral standard you set should better be analyzed correctly, which means you better use A GOOD SYSTEM of logic and other quantifiabe systems. or your truth and (social/moral) efficiency will be inprecise - not good ;)

as subjective and unscientific "logics" are mostly incomplete ;) specially when it comes to social structures ... lol

so the real problem here is imho the question, why we have specific moral standards (which some think falsly are not logic or under the laws of probability) and the other question would be about the precision of our action analytics (and why we think it is not logic or ...).

ammonium_bot t1_iyqbcg0 wrote on December 3, 2022 at 9:08 AM

> different, more then one

Did you mean to say "more than"?
Explanation: No explanation available.
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^Github

iiioiia t1_iz0rfl2 wrote on December 5, 2022 at 5:01 PM

> Nothing can be solved WITHOUT logic and probability!

Disagree - heuristics can solve many issues, and there is substantial evidence that heuristics do not run on (actual, flawless) logic.

> logic and probability are basic elements of all actions and all analytics (of action).

So too with heuristics!

> Kants Imperatives gives you everything you need. The hypothetic gives you the logic and the categoric gives you the clear goal you need to attend.

Is this necessarily an evidence-based True Fact, or might it be merely a heuristic powered belief?

> So its up to us and our "actual goals and logics" to set the moral standards. and so its up to us how many we safe or if we dont safe anybody and how we safe them. we dont have the the duty, only if we give us the duty!

What if people disagree with other people's "logic" and conclusions?

wowie6543 t1_iz44wjy wrote on December 6, 2022 at 9:31 AM

heuristic is not working without logic and probability. heuristic is an undercategory of it and is mostly using probabilitys!

u have not all info, but you still use logic and probability to come to a solution. Like trail and error, statistics and so on. all of those methods cant work without logic and probability.

My sentence of Kant and his Imperatives is not very precise. So im not sure what exactly you ask to be true here. A fact is the rationalistic/hypothetic system that is like causal and determiend analytics, methods that work to create truth and function. They are evidence-based but also use probability. As heuristic is also evidence-based in the end, but its only a probability where you expect the evidence to be.

so like phyiscs and math, which can prolong certain systems/facts but we cant measure them yet. Just after some years we are able to measure them and make em evidencebased. in the end

And the categoric imperative is also a method that works for moral. So both are methods/goals (rational sytems) which are not about belief, but about creating working facts and working moral - a workable and quantifiabale system for action.

So further, u can understand that moral, like all other systems, is a system of goals and methods and you can analyze goals and methods with the hypothetical/rational system (including logic and probability). And thats also evidence-based but also heuristic!

If people disagree with other peoples logics and conclusions, then there must be a reason for it. One reason could be, they dont have all the facts. Another reason could be, they dont have the same goals/methods (this is very important). And a third reason could be, they dont manage to come to the right conclusion, even if they have the facts and the same goals. And a forth reason could be, all first three together.

So for example, you have to jews analyzing a moral problem but both come to different conclusions. So where is the problem? They done have the same moral, they dont have the same facts or they dont understand them in the same way. or everything together.

of course its a big problem if you have two different systems, but you think its the same. this is the reason for many wars and many misunderstandings and social separations. and not just in morals.

iiioiia t1_iz4t3ml wrote on December 6, 2022 at 2:12 PM

> heuristic is not working without logic and probability. heuristic is an undercategory of it and is mostly using probabilitys!

Citation please.

Also note I said: "...there is substantial evidence that heuristics do not run on (actual, flawless) logic."

> u have not all info, but you still use logic and probability to come to a solution. Like trail and error, statistics and so on. all of those methods cant work without logic and probability.

You can also flip a coin to come to a solution.

>>> Kants Imperatives gives you everything you need. The hypothetic gives you the logic and the categoric gives you the clear goal you need to attend.

>> Is this necessarily an evidence-based True Fact, or might it be merely a heuristic powered belief?

> My sentence of Kant and his Imperatives is not very precise. So im not sure what exactly you ask to be true here.

Is it objectively true that it gives you everything that you need?

> A fact is the ationalistic/hypothetic system that is like causal and determiend analytics, methods that work to create truth and function. They are evidence-based but also use probability. As heuristic is also evidence-based in the end, but its only a probability where you expect the evidence to be.

If probabilistic, then not guaranteed to give a correct answer.

> And the categoric imperative is also a method that works for moral.

A sledge hammer "works" for opening a locked door also, but how optimal is it?

> So further, u can understand that moral, like all other systems, is a system of goals and methods and you can analyze goals and methods with the hypothetical/rational system (including logic and probability). And thats also evidence-based but also heuristic!

Whether one gets remotely correct answers is another matter.

> If people disagree with other peoples logics and conclusions, then there must be a reason for it. One reason could be, they dont have all the facts. Another reason could be, they dont have the same goals/methods (this is very important). And a third reason could be, they dont manage to come to the right conclusion, even if they have the facts and the same goals. And a forth reason could be, all first three together.

Another potential issue: there is no correct answer and the person isn't smart enough to realize it, due to the shit education systems we have going on here on planet Earth.

> > > > So for example, you have to jews analyzing a moral problem but both come to different conclusions. So where is the problem? They done have the same moral, they dont have the same facts or they dont understand them in the same way. or everything together.

One problem: people are not taught how to recognize when their thinking is unsound.

> of course its a big problem if you have two different systems, but you think its the same. this is the reason for many wars and many misunderstandings and social separations. and not just in morals.

Agree on this!