Equity, morality

[bahman]

Morality is a set of principles that provide the right solution for a situation. Equity is the main principle.

[Impenitent]

equity... he has no legs...

rejoice!! we will make you his equal

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

Morality is a set of principles that provide the right solution for a situation. Equity is the main principle.

To Hitler, what he did was the right solution to a situation.
That can hardly be considered moral.

Equity is merely a virtue not the main principle of morality, albeit it is essential within morality and ethics.

What is morality is mainly about doing 'good' and avoiding 'evil' where both terms must be defined precisely for the purpose of morality.

[Terrapin Station]

It's possible (and preferable in my view) to take an approach to morality that's not principle-oriented.

Principle-oriented approaches, especially when it comes to transgressions, tend towards unreasonable judgments in my opinion.

I characterize morality/ethics simply as dispositions towards interpersonal behavior (which can include "person towards themselves") with respect to behavior that one considers more significant than etiquette.

[Skepdick]

Morality is a set of principles that provide the right solution for a situation. Equity is the main principle.

Morality can never be about principles. It's about outcomes.

The deontologists are naive in their idealism. Best intentions with the worst outcomes can never be moral without also being absurd.

The notion of equity is impossible to define because language, but inequity is unmistakable when you see it.

[Peter Holmes]

Leaving aside the absurd claim of omniscience with regard to outcomes, consequentialism has the same problem as any other moral theory: what we count as a right or wrong, better or worse outcome is a matter of opinion. There's no fact of the matter, just as there isn't for deontologists.

[Skepdick]

Leaving aside the absurd claim of omniscience with regard to outcomes,

Nobody is claiming omniscience with regards to outcomes.

Predictive utility to distinguish outcome A from B is sufficient.

consequentialism has the same problem as any other moral theory: what we count as a right or wrong, better or worse outcome is a matter of opinion. There's no fact of the matter, just as there isn't for deontologists.

If that's a "problem" then the theory of Gravity also has a "problem". There are no such things as facts about Gravity, there are only consequences of Gravity. And so I need you to be clear about this. I need you to concede that you do not believe in Gravity. So, please justify your claim that a "problem" exists.

Please identify and ontologically locate the root cause of this objectively testable/verifiable global and multi-generational phenomenon.

Homicides - Our World in Data 2021-01-29 00-00-38.png

[bahman]

Morality is a set of principles that provide the right solution for a situation. Equity is the main principle.

To Hitler, what he did was the right solution to a situation.
That can hardly be considered moral.

He did not believe in equity.

Equity is merely a virtue not the main principle of morality, albeit it is essential within morality and ethics.

By equity being the main principle I mean that we can reach a moral society by that.

What is morality is mainly about doing 'good' and avoiding 'evil' where both terms must be defined precisely for the purpose of morality.

I don't think so. Evil could be necessary for a given situation. That is why I use right instead of good. I make the distinction between, good, evil, right, and wrong.

[bahman]

It's possible (and preferable in my view) to take an approach to morality that's not principle-oriented.

How do you decide the right solution for a situation if you don't believe in any principle?

Principle-oriented approaches, especially when it comes to transgressions, tend towards unreasonable judgments in my opinion.

I don't think so.

I characterize morality/ethics simply as dispositions towards interpersonal behavior (which can include "person towards themselves") with respect to behavior that one considers more significant than etiquette.

Could you please elaborate?

[Skepdick]

How do you decide the right solution for a situation if you don't believe in any principle?

Because "rightness" is not a principle - it's rightness itself.

[bahman]

Morality is a set of principles that provide the right solution for a situation. Equity is the main principle.

Morality can never be about principles. It's about outcomes.

You are right. I should use ethics instead of morality.

The deontologists are naive in their idealism. Best intentions with the worst outcomes can never be moral without also being absurd.

Could you please elaborate?

The notion of equity is impossible to define because language, but inequity is unmistakable when you see it.

Language is circular so it is impossible to define inequity too but as you say we can see equity when there is no inequity.

[Skepdick]

Could you please elaborate?

Hanlon's razor. Ignorance is more like than malice.

Blowing up the planet by accident would be a stupid way to go.

And so morality doesn't concern with human malice, it concerns itself with human stupidity.

I am stupid! I need guard rails. For myself.

Language is circular so it is impossible to define inequity too but as you say we can see equity when there is no inequity.

OK. So what sort of things we have to take away to reduce inequity?

[bahman]

Leaving aside the absurd claim of omniscience with regard to outcomes, consequentialism has the same problem as any other moral theory: what we count as a right or wrong, better or worse outcome is a matter of opinion. There's no fact of the matter, just as there isn't for deontologists.

Equity is a principle regardless of the outcome. The outcome however is right when it is based on equity.

[bahman]

Could you please elaborate?

Hanlon's razor. Ignorance is more like than malice.

Blowing up the planet by accident would be a stupid way to go.

And so morality doesn't concern with human malice, it concerns itself with human stupidity.

I am stupid! I need guard rails. For myself.

Language is circular so it is impossible to define inequity too but as you say we can see equity when there is no inequity.

OK. So what sort of things we have to take away to reduce inequity?

Economically for example difference in payment to different individuals is a measure of inequity.

[Terrapin Station]

It's possible (and preferable in my view) to take an approach to morality that's not principle-oriented.

How do you decide the right solution for a situation if you don't believe in any principle?

My disposition/intuition. That's what everyone ultimately uses even if they use a principle-oriented approach. Moral principles are dispositional.

I characterize morality/ethics simply as dispositions towards interpersonal behavior (which can include "person towards themselves") with respect to behavior that one considers more significant than etiquette.

Could you please elaborate?

What isn't clear about that to you? (It would help to know just what you need elaborated.)