Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:56 am The CRITICAL issue with is-ought is also not about "I" and one's desire.
We can apply 'ought' to any human activity.

It may be about one's individual desires or our collective desires, but it is about desire.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:56 am If I state, "you ought to breathe" do you have a choice in this case?

Yes you do. Hold your breath until your autonomous system takes over.
For a more permanent attempt - submerge yourself.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:56 am The main philosophical issue re is-ought is empiricism versus rationalism.
The point is, "is" is always parallel to "ought" and both will never ever be bridged.

It's not parallel. Ought is always a future destination. Over time the "is" converges towards the "ought".

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:56 am "We ought to achieve Zero death due to negligence"

Because hospitals want (desire!) to save lives? Sure. You don't need philosophy for this kind of ingenuity. It's common sense.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:56 am With such an ought, the hospital will have to establish a set up that can achieve the above 'ought'.

However in practice there is no guarantee 'what is' will be 'ought' because of infallible human nature, some negligence will likely happen, i.e. "is" will never be "ought".
What is positive in this case is the hospital has used the idea of 'ought' to strive towards the impossible ideal thereby achieving the optimal.

It's about the trend towards zero. Not getting to zero itself. Because the desire to save as many lives as possible (e.g ALL of them) will never go away.

"If You Can't Measure It, You Can't Improve It." --Peter Drucker ( https://guavabox.com/if-you-cant-measur ... mprove-it/ )

If you plot the mortality rate (IS) on a timeline your 1st derivative represents the rate of progress.Your 2nd derivative represents the speed of improvement.

So not only does the hospital want a trend towards zero - the hospital wants to get as close to 0 as soon as possible.
And now you have 3 metrics.

They still teach basic calculus and optimisation in high school don't they?

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:20 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:56 am If I state, "you ought to breathe" do you have a choice in this case?

Yes you do. Hold your breath until your autonomous system takes over.
For a more permanent attempt - submerge yourself.

Not me.
I don't think you will do the latter, else you will not be posting when tomorrow comes and thereafter.
Thus the 'ought' by default.

I have stated enough on the is-ought.
Suggest you raise a thread on 'is-ought' to express your theory in detail.

Btw, I did not state we ought, not to blame the Muslims.
What I have argued is, it is net-positive and optimal for humanity to focus on the ideology of Islam rather than primarily focussing on Muslims.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:42 am

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:20 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:56 am If I state, "you ought to breathe" do you have a choice in this case?

Yes you do. Hold your breath until your autonomous system takes over.
For a more permanent attempt - submerge yourself.

Not me.
I don't think you will the latter, else you will not be posting when tomorrow comes and thereafter.
Thus the 'ought' by default.

I have stated enough on the is-ought.
Suggest you raise a thread on 'is-ought' to express your theory in detail.

Btw, I did not state we ought, not to blame the Muslims.
What I have argued is, it is net-positive and optimal for humanity to focus on the ideology of Islam rather than primarily focussing on Muslims.

One hospital can reduce its death-by-negligence by 1 every year. Another can do the same by 1 every month.

They are both net-positives.

The first hospital is immoral.

If morality is of the greatest concern then it requires the highest standards.

What you have argued may be a nett-positive, but I don’t think it is optimal.

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:59 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:42 am

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:20 am
Yes you do. Hold your breath until your autonomous system takes over.
For a more permanent attempt - submerge yourself.

Not me.
I don't think you will the latter, else you will not be posting when tomorrow comes and thereafter.
Thus the 'ought' by default.

I have stated enough on the is-ought.
Suggest you raise a thread on 'is-ought' to express your theory in detail.

Btw, I did not state we ought, not to blame the Muslims.
What I have argued is, it is net-positive and optimal for humanity to focus on the ideology of Islam rather than primarily focussing on Muslims.

One hospital can reduce its death-by-negligence by 1 every year. Another can do the same by 1 every month.

They are both net-positives.

The first hospital is immoral.

The above is a bad inference.
If one is inclined towards evil, then one will see evil [immoral].
There is no need for a question of morality here at all.

In your example, I see the glass as half-full i.e. both are improving to the best of their ability. If both keep striving to improve towards the ideal 'ought' from their present state, eventually they will arrive at similar results at the best fallible humans can do.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:06 am The above is a bad inference.
If one is inclined towards evil, then one will see evil [immoral].
There is no need for a question of morality here at all.

In your example, I see the glass as half-full i.e. both are improving to the best of their ability. If both keep striving to improve towards the ideal 'ought' from their present state, eventually they will arrive at similar results at the best fallible humans can do.

The above is immoral reasoning. They will both (eventually) arrive at the optimal value. How long it takes to get there matters!

Hospital B will get there 12 times faster.

Hospital A will kill 12 times more people (due to negligence) while getting there.

And if I was a patient - guess which hospital I would avoid?

Evil comes in many forms. Ignorance being the most dangerous of all.

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:10 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:06 am The above is a bad inference.
If one is inclined towards evil, then one will see evil [immoral].
There is no need for a question of morality here at all.

In your example, I see the glass as half-full i.e. both are improving to the best of their ability. If both keep striving to improve towards the ideal 'ought' from their present state, eventually they will arrive at similar results at the best fallible humans can do.

The above is immoral reasoning. They will both (eventually) arrive at the optimal value.

Hospital B will get there in 1/12th of the time.

Hospital A will kill far more people (due to negligence) while getting there.

And if I was a patient - guess which hospital I would avoid?

Both hospitals are trying to strive towards the ideal, that is good moral intention.
If one hospital can reduce its death-by-negligence by 1 every year, then its past results could be reducing 1 every two years or none at all.

Your numbers are weird. A better example,

Say hospital A has 50 deaths by negligence a year.
Hospital B has 30 deaths by negligence a year.
Both hospital decide at the same time to adopt an ought of Zero negligence a year.
After two years hospital A achieved a reduction to an average of 31 deaths by negligence while hospital achieve 20 deaths.
It would be ridiculous to say hospital A is immoral.
The fact is both hospital has applied the IS-OUGHT principles correctly and effectively.

It would be immoral only if hospital A deliberately don't give a damn and insist their standard is 50 deaths by negligence a year because they cannot do anything about it and their excuse is, the doctors and staff are infallible humans.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:23 am Both hospitals are trying to strive towards the ideal, that is good moral intention.

Intentions don't matter. Results do. Kant was wrong.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:23 am
Say hospital A has 50 deaths by negligence a year.
Hospital B has 30 deaths by negligence a year.
Both hospital decide at the same time to adopt an ought of Zero negligence a year.
After two years hospital A achieve an average of 30 deaths by negligence while hospital achieve 20 deaths.
It would be ridiculous to say hospital A is immoral.
The fact is both hospital has applied the IS-OUGHT principles correctly and effectively.

One hospital applied the principle more effectively. The area under the graph (1st derrivative) represents the number of people dying due to negligence.

One hospital is killing more people due to negligence than the other. It is immoral. Arithmetic.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:23 am It would be immoral only if hospital A deliberately don't give a damn and insist their standard is 50 deaths by negligence a year because they cannot do anything about it and their excuse is, the doctors and staff are infallible humans.

Deliberation has nothing to do with this. If your best intentions aren't good enough - your actions are immoral.

This is how objective morality works. Immorality has nothing to do with blame or finger-pointing or punishment. It is simply an assertion.

One hospital is the paragon for moral progress. The other one isn't and requires attention!

Exactly like you say "critique the ideology" - critique the hospital that is slacking!

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:27 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:23 am Both hospitals are trying to strive towards the ideal, that is good moral intention.

Intentions don't matter. Results do.

Are you familiar with the general rule in the Courts where intention is the most critical consideration is any criminal judgement.
That is why we have the terms 'premeditation' crime of passion, etc.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:23 am
Say hospital A has 50 deaths by negligence a year.
Hospital B has 30 deaths by negligence a year.
Both hospital decide at the same time to adopt an ought of Zero negligence a year.
After two years hospital A achieve an average of 30 deaths by negligence while hospital achieve 20 deaths.
It would be ridiculous to say hospital A is immoral.
The fact is both hospital has applied the IS-OUGHT principles correctly and effectively.

One hospital applied the principle more effectively. The area under the graph (1st derrivative) represents the number of people dying due to negligence.

One hospital is killing more people due to negligence than the other. It is immoral. Arithmetic.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:23 am It would be immoral only if hospital A deliberately don't give a damn and insist their standard is 50 deaths by negligence a year because they cannot do anything about it and their excuse is, the doctors and staff are infallible humans.

Deliberation has nothing to do with this. If your best intentions aren't good enough - your actions are immoral.

This is how objective morality works.

Your thinking is too shallow and narrow in the above case.

That both hospitals set a ZERO ought mean they are expressing their best intentions.
One has to be pragmatic to understand different people and organization has different competences at certain point in time.

You cannot expect the best hospitals in some 3rd World Country to achieve the same results as the best ones in the USA within a short time.
But given time, example the once 3rd World China, did catch up with the West given their drive and determination towards economic ideals.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:37 am Are you familiar with the general rule in the Courts where intention is the most critical consideration is any criminal judgement.
That is why we have the terms 'premeditation' crime of passion, etc.

Objective morality exists above the courts system. Courts are about justice.

Punishing negligence doesn't work towards reducing it.
Punishing intent does.

Courts are an archaic system. They are often counter-productive. Punishing people for making errors doesn't help.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:37 am It would be immoral only if hospital A deliberately don't give a damn and insist their standard is 50 deaths by negligence a year because they cannot do anything about it and their excuse is, the doctors and staff are infallible humans.

Special pleading.

Deliberation has nothing to do with this. If your best intentions aren't good enough - your actions are immoral.
That doesn't mean we will throw you in a jail cell. It means your actions are immoral.

What we do next is up to us. Maybe this job isn’t for you?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:37 am Your thinking is too shallow and narrow in the above case.

No. You are just busy doing apologetics in attempt to justify your mediocre moral standards.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:37 am That both hospitals set a ZERO ought mean they are expressing their best intentions.
One has to be pragmatic to understand different people and organization has different competences at certain point in time.

Like I said. Intentions don't matter - results do. If your circumstances prevent you from being your best - then you need to signal to your superiors how the circumstances can be improved. Do you need more resources? Are you over-worked? What's stopping you from doing your best?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:37 am You cannot expect the best hospitals in some 3rd World Country to achieve the same results as the best ones in the USA within a short time.
But given time, example the once 3rd World China, did catch up with the West given their drive and determination towards economic ideals.

Perhaps you missed the point. The fact that the hospital is immoral doesn't result in punishment or court/prison. It results in questions.

WHY are you not delivering the results like hospital B? What do we need to do so that you can become like hospital B?
Do you need more funding?
Do you need more doctors?
Do you need better doctors?

What is going wrong? Subject it to the 5 whys. Root cause analysis.

Think of "immoral" as "corrective action required". Hospital A is the special child - it requires more attention.

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:41 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:37 am Are you familiar with the general rule in the Courts where intention is the most critical consideration is any criminal judgement.
That is why we have the terms 'premeditation' crime of passion, etc.

Objective morality exists above the courts system. Courts are about justice.

Punishing negligence doesn't work towards reducing it.
Punishing intent does.

Courts are an archaic system. They are often counter-productive. Punishing people for making errors doesn't help.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:37 am It would be immoral only if hospital A deliberately don't give a damn and insist their standard is 50 deaths by negligence a year because they cannot do anything about it and their excuse is, the doctors and staff are infallible humans.

Special pleading.

Deliberation has nothing to do with this. If your best intentions aren't good enough - your actions are immoral.
That doesn't mean we will throw you in a jail cell. It means your actions are immoral.

What we do next is up to us.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:37 am Your thinking is too shallow and narrow in the above case.

No. You are just busy doing apologetics in attempt to justify your mediocre moral standards.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:37 am That both hospitals set a ZERO ought mean they are expressing their best intentions.
One has to be pragmatic to understand different people and organization has different competences at certain point in time.

Like I said. Intentions don't matter - results do. If your circumstances prevent you from being your best - then you need to signal to your superiors how the circumstances can be improved. Do you need more resources? Are you over-worked? What's stopping you from doing your best?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:37 am You cannot expect the best hospitals in some 3rd World Country to achieve the same results as the best ones in the USA within a short time.
But given time, example the once 3rd World China, did catch up with the West given their drive and determination towards economic ideals.

Perhaps you missed the point. The fact that the hospital is immoral doesn't result in punishment or court/prison. It results in questions.

WHY are you not delivering the results like hospital B? What do we need to do so that you can become like hospital B?
Do you need more funding?
Do you need more doctors?
Do you need better doctors?

What is going wrong? Subject it to the 5 whys. Root cause analysis.

Think of "immoral" as "corrective action required". Hospital A is the special child - it requires more attention.

Results count but what is most critical is the setting up a system that rely on 'oughts' as a standard guideline in contrast to one that do not set up any such system at all.

Root cause analysis and 5 Whys plus other problem solving techniques to reduce the Gap between results and the standard ought [ideal].

You are missing the point,
Is a fact at present 3rd world countries will not achieve the same results as those of the first world due to many constraints which can be complex and cannot be overcome immediately.
What counts is therefore the good intentions of setting 'oughts' within a system and strive to achieve optimal results in contrast to one where no systems with ideal oughts are set up.

If you are familiar with 5 Whys, you may be familiar with the contrast between setting vision of Zero Defects as opposed to Acceptable Quality Levels [AQL].

Think of "immoral" as "corrective action required". Hospital A is the special child - it requires more attention.

This is not Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:24 am

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:41 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:37 am Are you familiar with the general rule in the Courts where intention is the most critical consideration is any criminal judgement.
That is why we have the terms 'premeditation' crime of passion, etc.

Objective morality exists above the courts system. Courts are about justice.

Punishing negligence doesn't work towards reducing it.
Punishing intent does.

Courts are an archaic system. They are often counter-productive. Punishing people for making errors doesn't help.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:37 am It would be immoral only if hospital A deliberately don't give a damn and insist their standard is 50 deaths by negligence a year because they cannot do anything about it and their excuse is, the doctors and staff are infallible humans.

Special pleading.

Deliberation has nothing to do with this. If your best intentions aren't good enough - your actions are immoral.
That doesn't mean we will throw you in a jail cell. It means your actions are immoral.

What we do next is up to us.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:37 am Your thinking is too shallow and narrow in the above case.

No. You are just busy doing apologetics in attempt to justify your mediocre moral standards.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:37 am That both hospitals set a ZERO ought mean they are expressing their best intentions.
One has to be pragmatic to understand different people and organization has different competences at certain point in time.

Like I said. Intentions don't matter - results do. If your circumstances prevent you from being your best - then you need to signal to your superiors how the circumstances can be improved. Do you need more resources? Are you over-worked? What's stopping you from doing your best?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:37 am You cannot expect the best hospitals in some 3rd World Country to achieve the same results as the best ones in the USA within a short time.
But given time, example the once 3rd World China, did catch up with the West given their drive and determination towards economic ideals.

Perhaps you missed the point. The fact that the hospital is immoral doesn't result in punishment or court/prison. It results in questions.

WHY are you not delivering the results like hospital B? What do we need to do so that you can become like hospital B?
Do you need more funding?
Do you need more doctors?
Do you need better doctors?

What is going wrong? Subject it to the 5 whys. Root cause analysis.

Think of "immoral" as "corrective action required". Hospital A is the special child - it requires more attention.

Results count but what is most critical is the setting up a system that rely on 'oughts' as a standard guideline in contrast to one that do not set up any such system at all.

Root cause analysis and 5 Whys plus other problem solving techniques to reduce the Gap between results and the standard ought [ideal].

You are missing the point,
Is a fact at present 3rd world countries will not achieve the same results as those of the first world due to many constraints which can be complex and cannot be overcome immediately.
What counts is therefore the good intentions of setting 'oughts' within a system and strive to achieve optimal results in contrast to one where no systems with ideal oughts are set up.

If you are familiar with 5 Whys, you may be familiar with the contrast between setting vision of Zero Defects as opposed to Acceptable Quality Levels [AQL].

Think of "immoral" as "corrective action required". Hospital A is the special child - it requires more attention.

This is not Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

You are still hung up on apologetics.

Calling a hospital immoral is not about assigning blame, or diminishing the efforts, dedication or intention of the staff.

It is simply an assertion. hospital A’s failure to achieve the moral standard set by hospital B makes it immoral!

Hospital B has shown us what is possible in terms of moral progress. They have set the AQL. Hospital A has failed to meet it!

That doesn’t mean we should be cutting hospital A slack! It means we should be helping hospital A reach the AQL set by hospital B!
And if hospital A is victim of circumstance of their country/government - then that country/government is immoral. Then that country/government needs help!

Setting "oughts" is not sufficient. Figuring out what's preventing you from getting there is part of the process!

I am arguing this from a position of good faith - I am assuming that everybody has best intentions, so their failure to deliver is about circumstance. Anything else you are reading between the lines is your own baggage.

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:31 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:24 am

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:41 am
Objective morality exists above the courts system. Courts are about justice.

Punishing negligence doesn't work towards reducing it.
Punishing intent does.

Courts are an archaic system. They are often counter-productive. Punishing people for making errors doesn't help.


Special pleading.

Deliberation has nothing to do with this. If your best intentions aren't good enough - your actions are immoral.
That doesn't mean we will throw you in a jail cell. It means your actions are immoral.

What we do next is up to us.


No. You are just busy doing apologetics in attempt to justify your mediocre moral standards.


Like I said. Intentions don't matter - results do. If your circumstances prevent you from being your best - then you need to signal to your superiors how the circumstances can be improved. Do you need more resources? Are you over-worked? What's stopping you from doing your best?


Perhaps you missed the point. The fact that the hospital is immoral doesn't result in punishment or court/prison. It results in questions.

WHY are you not delivering the results like hospital B? What do we need to do so that you can become like hospital B?
Do you need more funding?
Do you need more doctors?
Do you need better doctors?

What is going wrong? Subject it to the 5 whys. Root cause analysis.

Think of "immoral" as "corrective action required". Hospital A is the special child - it requires more attention.

Results count but what is most critical is the setting up a system that rely on 'oughts' as a standard guideline in contrast to one that do not set up any such system at all.

Root cause analysis and 5 Whys plus other problem solving techniques to reduce the Gap between results and the standard ought [ideal].

You are missing the point,
Is a fact at present 3rd world countries will not achieve the same results as those of the first world due to many constraints which can be complex and cannot be overcome immediately.
What counts is therefore the good intentions of setting 'oughts' within a system and strive to achieve optimal results in contrast to one where no systems with ideal oughts are set up.

If you are familiar with 5 Whys, you may be familiar with the contrast between setting vision of Zero Defects as opposed to Acceptable Quality Levels [AQL].

Think of "immoral" as "corrective action required". Hospital A is the special child - it requires more attention.

This is not Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

You are still hung up on apologetics.

Calling a hospital immoral is not about assigning blame, or diminishing the efforts, dedication or intention of the staff.

It is simply an assertion. hospital A’s failure to achieve the moral standard set by hospital B makes it immoral!

Hospital B has shown us what is possible in terms of moral progress. They have set the AQL. Hospital A has failed to meet it!

Note immoral = evil.
It is not appropriate to use this implication in the above situations.

Note both hospitals did not set AQLs. Both set the highest 'oughts' i.e. ZERO death by negligence.
It is just that one hospital A started from a lower position but is progressing towards the ideal.

That doesn’t mean we should be cutting hospital A slack! It means we should be helping hospital A reach the AQL set by hospital B!
And if hospital A is victim of circumstance of their country/government - then that country/government is immoral. Then that country/government needs help!

Setting "oughts" is not sufficient. Figuring out what's preventing you from getting there is part of the process!

I am arguing this from a position of good faith - I am assuming that everybody has best intentions, so their failure to deliver is about circumstance. Anything else you are reading between the lines is your own baggage.

I did not say Hospital A will stop their progress.
Obviously they will study why they have 31 deaths and take the necessary to progress from there to the next level of optimality.
With an effective system, drive and determination, both Hospital A and B may achieve the rate of 5 deaths by negligence in say 20 years time.

What is most important is, if there is a gap between the 'ought' and 'is' they will understand the reasons why there is a gap and strive the best to close the gap.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:01 am Note immoral = evil.
It is not appropriate to use this implication in the above situations.

Immoral. Evil. Incompetent. Ignorant. They are just words! If you don't like them, or "feel they are inappropriate" - pick a word that doesn't hurt your feelings.

You are bickering over language when we are talking about human lives. Focus!

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:01 am Note both hospitals did not set AQLs. Both set the highest 'oughts' i.e. ZERO death by negligence.

The ideal is "objective morality" - zero deaths due to negligence. Whether it's achievable remains to be seen!
On our way there hospital B appears to be in the lead. That is the AQL! The paragon.

Hospital B has shown us what is possible and achievable! That is the LEAST you should expect from every other hospital in the world!
The most you CAN expect is "zero deaths due to negligence"!

This is the band which represents "morality" - everything below is immoral! Including your apologetics.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:01 am It is just that one hospital A started from a lower position but is progressing towards the ideal.

Then measure rate of improvement (1st and 2nd derivatives), not absolute numbers.

If hospital A starts from a lower position, but is improving faster - it will overtake hospital B in X years. Use the compound interest formula.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:01 am I did not say Hospital A will stop their progress.
Obviously they will study why they have 31 deaths and take the necessary to progress from there to the next level of optimality.
With an effective system, drive and determination, both Hospital A and B may achieve the rate of 5 deaths by negligence in say 20 years time.

What is most important is, if there is a gap between the 'ought' and 'is' they will understand the reasons why there is a gap and strive the best to close the gap.

The gap is meaningless. It's just a point-in-time. The rate at which the gap is being closed is a metric.

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:07 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:01 am Note immoral = evil.
It is not appropriate to use this implication in the above situations.

Immoral. Evil. Incompetent. Ignorant. They are just words! If you don't like them, or "feel they are inappropriate" - pick a word that doesn't hurt your feelings.

You are bickering over language when we are talking about human lives. Focus!

Note this is a philosophy forum.
The terms morality [good] versus evil has significant meanings.
I had stated the issue of is-ought is most critical in terms of the Philosophy of Morality.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:01 am Note both hospitals did not set AQLs. Both set the highest 'oughts' i.e. ZERO death by negligence.

The ideal is "objective morality" - zero deaths due to negligence. Whether it's achievable remains to be seen!
On our way there hospital B appears to be in the lead. That is the AQL! The paragon.

Hospital B has shown us what is possible and achievable! That is the LEAST you should expect from every other hospital in the world!
The most you CAN expect is "zero deaths due to negligence"!

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:01 am It is just that one hospital A started from a lower position but is progressing towards the ideal.

Then measure rate of improvement (1st and 2nd derivatives), not absolute numbers.

If hospital A starts from a lower position, but is improving faster - it will overtake hospital B in X years. Use the compound interest formula.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:01 am I did not say Hospital A will stop their progress.
Obviously they will study why they have 31 deaths and take the necessary to progress from there to the next level of optimality.
With an effective system, drive and determination, both Hospital A and B may achieve the rate of 5 deaths by negligence in say 20 years time.

What is most important is, if there is a gap between the 'ought' and 'is' they will understand the reasons why there is a gap and strive the best to close the gap.

The gap is meaningless. It's just a point-in-time. The rate at which the gap is being closed is a metric.

I maintain setting up, adopting and maintaining the holistic system is critical.
The system could be along the principles of the Plan Do Check Act [PDCA] Model or some more sophisticated system model.
The contrast is where one do not operate on any system but rather on a haphazard basis.
Since both Hospital A and B are adopting the system and doing the best they can given their circumstances, there is no issues with their results.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:24 am Note this is a philosophy forum.
The terms morality [good] versus evil has significant meanings.
I had stated the issue of is-ought is most critical in terms of the Philosophy of Morality.

Au contraire. If philosophers are involved chances are that the word "morality" and "evil" is either meaningless or so esoteric as to be useless. Surely a precise definition in Mathematics is better than an ambiguous definition in English?
Hospital B was immoral in 2001 and 2002. In 2003 it became the paragon, so hospital A became immoral.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:01 am I maintain setting up, adopting and maintaining the holistic system is critical.
The system could be along the principles of the Plan Do Check Act [PDCA] Model or some more sophisticated system model.
The contrast is where one do not operate on any system but rather on a haphazard basis.
Since both Hospital A and B are adopting the system and doing the best they can given their circumstances, there is no issues with their results.

That's implementation detail. It doesn't matter because - equifinality.
Whatever works in getting that blue line towards 0 as fast as possible.

That's morality.

To claim that hospital A is moral in 2008 is to turn a blind eye to 40 deaths due to negligence.
That's what the black stripes represent. Dead people.