The Math of Morality: 'E' for Effect

This is a continuation and expansion of my post "The Math of Morality". If you haven't read it, I would suggest doing so before reading on. This post covers the effect of a morally measurable action, which I gave the variable 'E'.

The effect of a moraly measureable action is more subtle than right or wrong. Was the action positive, negative or neutral, did it require temporary or permanent influence, was it intentional or accidental, how much knowledge was involved in the action, what was the intensity of the effect, and what did the action affect? All of this impacts the degree of the effect. In the rest of this post I will break these down to give you a better understanding of what I mean.

Keep in mind that when I speak of effect, it doesn't necessarily mean what the actual effect was. As an example, I'll use murder. Attempted murder has a better outcome than murder, but the intended effect was still for someone to die. The only difference is the one who didn't actually accomplish the murder was unsuccessful. Now, on to what makes up the effect.

The first component is what I call the litmus test, similar to the one used to test pH in chemistry. I've given this component the variable 'l' in homage to it, even. The test I use are what I call the "4Hs of Morality". They are Heal, Help, Hinder, and Harm. If the action heals or helps then it's a positive one, if it harms or hinders it's negative, but if it does none then it's neutral. If the action is neutral then there's no need to continue examining it.

The secondary component is influence, which I've given the variable 'i'. How much influence did the person have on the effect the action caused? Pushing it along has a greater effect on where a ball goes than just starting it rolling, or even nudging it as it rolls by. However, regardless of how much influence you had you are still at least partially responsible for where the ball ends up.

The tertiary component is aim, which I've given the variable 'a'. Was the person's aim to cause the effect, or was it accidental? As with influence, even if their aim wasn't for the ball to end up where it did, they still hold a measure of responsibility for where it rests.

The quaternary component is knowledge, which I've given the variable 'k'. What level of knowledge did the person who performed the action have? The information a person uses to influence their action directly influences the result. If you're knowledge is completely wrong then it will subtract from it, no knowledge at all will not affect it, and in-depth or scholarly knowledge will add to it. Taking an action based on erroneous information is completely counter to understanding the subject.

The quinary component is intensity, which I've given the variable 'I'. Intensity can be a measure of time, monetary value, Was the duration of the effect measured in minutes, hours, days, months, years, or permenant? The intensity can also be measured in percentage. However, to really explain this one you need to know the last one.

That leads us to the senary component of aspect, which I've given the variable 'A'. This gives a value of the aspect of the person affected. It can range all of the way from character to well-being. There are a few levels in between, but hopefully you get the idea.

That's broken down the variables that make up the effect, but now we get to the hard part; Giving values to those variables so they can be used in an equation. Some are simple numbers, but others will be more akin to variables such as the coefficient of friction. This will make some difficult, but, as I've said, I've been thinking about this for a while. I've done quite a bit of work for you. Now, off we go again.

'l', the litmus test, is one of the easy ones. It starts the equation on its path of positive, neutral or negative. So

L = 1, 0, -1

In spite of my criteria, the 4Hs, this one only defines if the effect was positive or negative. A combination of other variables will move the result further from zero.

'i', influence, is a bit more difficult to find. If a person doesn't influence the entire process they may still influence it at one juncture, or even more than one. For this one I think of each juncture as 0.1, with the entire process being 1. So if a person influences an effect at one juncture the influence is 0.1, twice is 0.2, etc. until you reach continuous influence which is 1.0. So

0 <= i <= 1

Yes, this may be oversimplifying, but I'm refining the equation as I go. I'm also a fan of base 10 units.

'a', aim, is easier. At least, in some ways. The person could have caused the effect accidentally, through negligence, or on purpose. Each would still leave the person responsible for the effect, but accidental is less than negligence is less than on purpose. So

a = 0, 1, 2

Accidental would have the value of 0 which as an exponent would adjust the base to 1, negligence would have a value of 1 which would leave the base as the same number, and purposeful would be 2 which would multiply the base by itself.

'k', knowledge, is another difficult value to quantify. Here you have to examine the reasoning used by the person when they performed the action. I think of this as a percentage, similar to influence, but with a slight but important difference. The range of knowledge is

-1 <= k <= 1

Finding what the person said or wrote while they were 'supporting' the effect, or questioning them afterward, could provide a look into their knowledge. If you are unable to get detailed knowledge of the person's understanding, you may have to rely on assumptions in your examinations. Examine everything they said or wrote during the process of the action, and compare it to what is known. If everything they said was completley in error, or questioning them afterward showed all of the information concerning the action was erroneous, then you give them a 'k' value of -1 (-100%). However, if they have scholarly knowledge of the subject and examination of it shows no errors then their knowledge is 1 (100%). I'll go into this, and other values, further in other posts.

'I', intensity, is fairly easy to quantify. Did the action have a localized effect? Again, you can break this down into percentages.

0 <= I <= 1

Intensity applies to the aspect, which I'll be describing in the next paragraph. What was the percentage of the aspect that was affected? Of course, this applies only to the subject of the action, and not other parts, which will become important as I'll describe later.

Last but not least is 'A', aspect. What aspect of the person was affected? In order to be quantifiable there have to be restrictions. As such, I've broken the aspect down into five parts.

1. Knowledge
2. Character
3. Property
4. Equality
5. Well-being

This one will definitely have it's own, and extensive, post. Notice that emotion doesn't rank in the system, because I find it to have a value of 0. When I'm examining an action, I look more into the actual effects than the perceived ones. As such, a value has to be quantifiable, even if it's difficult to do so. Emotion is much like pain, because it depends on how much pain a person has experienced previously as to what answer you will get. However, we know that a broken arm causes more actual damage than a surface bruise.

I've just broken down all of the components, or at least all of those I have thought about, that influence the effect. Just so I have them all in one place they are

Litmus test:

L = 1, 0, -1

Influence:

i = 0 <= i <= 1

Aim:

a = 0, 1, 2

Knowledge:

k = -1 <= k <= 1

Intensity:

I = 0 <= I <= 1

Aspect:

A = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Now comes the fun part. How do all of these fit together in an equation to give a value to the effect? For that we have to look at how each value will affect the result. Granted, this will mean that the variables I've shown won't be included in the equation in the order of introduction, but I also told you that what you're reading is in "real time". Basically as I work it out in my head you're reading my conclusions. So off we go, again.

The conclusion I've come to is the litmus test, impact, aspect and aim are directly related to each other.

L * I * A ^a

Then the result gets adjusted slightly according to the person's knowledge and influence.

L * I * A ^a + k * i

So

E = L * I * A ^a + k * i

That makes up the part of the equation that concerns the effect, 'E'. Next I'll be covering the variable 'N'. As with 'E', things are not as simple as they seem, so stay tuned.