Morality: Quantifying the Qualitative

[Veritas Aequitas]

Often when I present the idea of Quantifying [Objectifying] and Qualitative [Subjectivity], I am accuse of being very stupid.
There are many scientific research that are based on a scale and degrees for low to high i.e. in quantifying the qualitative that had been accepted by the majority and put into practice.
This can easily be applied to morality where appropriate and we have to be aware of its limitations and use it positively and optimally.

Here is a discussion to support my point:

That's entirely missing the point. None of your measurements measures anything that can actually be measured. The AI criticised hedonic calculus for not having any actual true numbers to be based on. But your own thing uses the same Hallucinated Numerals system of measurement. Your misdirectional blather changes nothing about this problem.

AI wrote above:

Subjectivity of Pleasure and Pain:
Pleasure and pain are highly subjective experiences that vary from person to person. It's difficult to quantify them objectively, as different individuals may value different types of pleasure and pain differently.
Bentham's attempt to create a universal scale for measuring pleasure and pain is challenged by this inherent subjectivity.

Where did it state, "not having any actual true numbers to be based on."
The problem is "Pleasure and pain are highly subjective experiences that vary from person to person".

To avoid being stuck and to progress with subjectivity, I had always been inclined to objectifying or quantifying the qualitative or subjective based on some sort of intersubjective consensus via various research scales.
There are many scientific research that are based on a scale and degrees for low to high that had been accepted by the majority and put into practice, e.g.

From AI[wR]:

Likert Scale: This is the most common type of scale, where respondents choose from a range of options, such as "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Each option is assigned a numerical value, typically from 1 to 5 or 1 to 7.

Semantic Differential Scale: This scale uses pairs of opposite adjectives, such as "good" and "bad," "hot" and "cold," etc.
Respondents rate their perception on a scale between the two adjectives

Visual Analog Scale (VAS): This scale uses a line with labeled endpoints, such as "no pain" and "worst possible pain."
Respondents mark a point on the line to indicate their level of pain or other subjective experience.

Borg Scale of Perceived Exertion (RPE): This scale is specifically used to measure perceived exertion during physical activity.
It ranges from 6 (no exertion) to 20 (maximal exertion).

These scales are often used in surveys, questionnaires, and other research methods to gather subjective data on topics such as pain, satisfaction, quality of life, and perceived effort.

Here are a few examples of research findings based on scale ratings that have been put into practice:

1. Patient Satisfaction Surveys:
Finding: Patients who rate their satisfaction with healthcare providers higher are more likely to adhere to treatment plans and have better health outcomes.
Practice: Hospitals and clinics use patient satisfaction surveys to identify areas for improvement, such as communication, bedside manner, and wait times. This feedback helps healthcare providers enhance their services and improve patient experiences.

2. Product and Service Evaluation:
Finding: Customer satisfaction ratings are strongly correlated with brand loyalty and repeat business.
Practice: Companies use customer satisfaction surveys to measure customer sentiment and identify areas for product or service improvement. This data helps businesses make informed decisions to enhance customer experiences and drive sales.

3. Employee Engagement Surveys:
Finding: Employees who feel engaged and satisfied with their jobs are more productive and less likely to leave the company.
Practice: Organizations use employee engagement surveys to assess employee morale, job satisfaction, and perceived organizational support. This information helps HR departments implement strategies to improve employee retention and productivity.

4. Pain Assessment:
Finding: Self-reported pain ratings on a scale of 0 to 10 can be used to monitor pain intensity and guide treatment decisions.
Practice: Healthcare providers use pain scales to assess pain levels in patients, especially those who may have difficulty communicating their pain verbally, such as infants or individuals with cognitive impairments. This information helps in tailoring pain management strategies.

5. Quality of Life Assessments:
Finding: Quality of life assessments can help measure the impact of chronic illnesses and treatments on patients' overall well-being.
Practice: Healthcare providers use quality of life assessments to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments and interventions, such as chemotherapy or rehabilitation. This information can help in making informed decisions about treatment plans and end-of-life care.

These are just a few examples of how scale ratings have been used to inform research and improve practices in various fields.
By quantifying subjective experiences, these scales provide valuable insights that can lead to positive changes and better outcomes.

...........

See, you are so ignorant what is really out there re quantification [objectifying] of the qualitative [subjective].

The problem is not with the quantification itself. The problem with the Hedonic Calculus is every individual is expected to do a calculation every time they have made a moral related decision or action. This is not practical for a moral system.
In addition, I do not agree with Hedonism reliance on pleasure and pain as the moral drivers.

My moral system targets to improve the moral quotient of each individual so that they are morally competent and their spontaneous acts are naturally moral without having to do any deliberations, deciding or calculations.
This is like a well-trained person in any skill [sports, etc.] who do not have to calculate or deliberate on any action to be skillful i.e. its unconscious competence.
If they ended up somehow with something immoral, then they will study the root causes to avoid such mistakes in future and this is done on an iterative and continuous basis.

etc: enclosing AI statement in Quote to avoid confusion

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[FlashDangerpants]

The Likert scale only measures whether people agree or disagree with a question, it does not measure anything to do with the phenomenon under investigation.

The Semantic Differential Scale records opinions.

The Visual Analog Scale doesn't measure actual pain (which would be impossible) it accepts patient's reports of pain.

The Borg Scale of Perceived Exertion doesn't measure anything to do with the phenomenon under investigation, it simply records perceptions.

None of those surveys is actually a measurement of the thing, in every case they are an attempt to collect data about opinions regarding the thing. So please pay attention to this next sentence.... In every case a proxy is being measured because the actual phenomenon is immeasurable. The difference here is that in most of those cases the doctors and scientists can be exected to understand this limitation, whereas you are incapable.

As the AI already wrote... Pleasure and pain are highly subjective experiences that vary from person to person. It's difficult to quantify them objectively, as different individuals may value different types of pleasure and pain differently. Yet you have directly contradicted it by claiming the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) above as some sort of direct measure. This incidentally is how you get your reputation for clumsiness.

Your "measurement" ssytem for "morality-proper" is no better. All you have for that is an opinion poll that is supposed to look at one of your "exhaustive lists" of all the moral things and then you take the numbers invented by that process to be measurements. The AI has already critiqued that approach for you, the results are not promising.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Error!

FDP: Yet you have directly contradicted it by claiming the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) above as some sort of direct measure. This incidentally is how you get your reputation for clumsiness.

It is from AI and not mine
For easier reading I did not use the "Quote" function, I started with
From AI[wR]:
and end with "......."
I have now edited to put them into Quote " " to avoid confusion.


My approach is not based solely on the above scales but in addition have other more sophisticated methods to iron out any subjective bias.

None of those surveys is actually a measurement of the thing, in every case they are an attempt to collect data about opinions regarding the thing. So please pay attention to this next sentence.... In every case a proxy is being measured because the actual phenomenon is immeasurable. The difference here is that in most of those cases the doctors and scientists can be expected to understand this limitation, whereas you are incapable.

You are shouting the obvious.
So such approaches should be banned?

It is a fact that such data are subjective, but they are positive for human progress and various benefits when we used them with understanding of their limitation.
Your are just barking, you don't have the facts and credibility to decide whether I am capable or incapable of using them.

[FlashDangerpants]

It is a fact that such data are subjective, but they are positive for human progress and various benefits when we used them with understanding of their limitation.

The limitation is that they do not measure any of the claimed quantities.

I don't care if you think the lie is nice, being nice and being true are not the same thing.