The Math of Morality: Other Variables

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 possibility of other variables in the equation.

I've already spoke of revisiting the 'P' variable, because something about it seems off. However, there is also the possibility of other variables needing to be added to the equation. There are also some unnecessary variables that some will want to add to the equation.

There are some variables that may need to be added to the equation. I've tried to account for those additional variables, but, at the moment, I can't think of what those variables would be. Of course, if I had already thought of them they would have been included. Regardless, the addition of those variable should not affect the internal consistency of the results.

This is partially due to me working on this for an extended period of time. I need to take a little bit to step back and do other things before coming back to this again. Hopefully, when I do revisit it I'll be able to clarify it a bit.

The main issue that I'm not going to worry about are the unnecessary variables. The primary ones being government, society, religion, and the individual. None of these are necessary for morality, and in actuallity seem informed by morality itself. The issue is the lack of internal consistency within them.

With government the morality is defined by enacted laws. As an example of inconsistency, the federal law requires that all drivers and children wear a safety restraint. The details of additional requirements and when violators can be fined varies, but the basics are applied through 49 states. However, helmets are a different story.

Helmet laws are left up to the state, and whether the rider has to wear one varies state by state. Some states require all riders to wear one, and other only riders below a certain age. The inconsistency is that they don't want you going through the windshield, but they don't mind if your head bounces (or worse) on asphalt.

The inconsistency of society involves moral zeitgeist. To give an example, how acceptable would interracial marriages or homosexuality have been fifty years ago? The moral result of an action should not change over time if it's consistent. I can see caution over not knowing what impact an action may have on a particular aspect, but if the result comes from a kneejerk reaction by society (most of the time it's a combination of superiority and the "ewww" factor) then it is morally inconsistent.

The inconsistency of religion involves the application. As an example, I'll use Christianity. I'm not picking on Christians, because I'm simply more familiar with it than others. Regardless, one of the Ten Commandments regards murder (or killing, depending on translation). It basically says that you shouldn't do it. Well, everyone, with the exception of psychopaths, would seem to agree with that concept. However, the application of it is inconsistent. That book that compiles the laws of Christianity, the Bible, says that you shouldn't murder people, but in Leviticus it tells you to. If you can change the result of an action if it's done against someone you don't like then your moral equation is inconsistent.

The individual inconsistency is more subtle. Much like religion people allow biases to creep in when their applying their moral math. From judging the moral result of others actions all of the way to their own moral actions are impacted by that persons biases.

For instance, if someone has a quality that you don't agree with you will often attribute a lower morality score to an action than if they agreed with you. You see every action as having an ulterior motive associated with that belief. This also applies when you start applying other experiences to a persons actions. If a person shows even slight similarities to previous experience, you will shift your moral result to better favor your expectations.

The shift can be even greater when it comes to performing or judging your own actions. Knowledge of someone who's ideals you don't agree with can result in a sort of confirmation bias to the morality of your actions. If you didn't know the people involved, and their beliefs compared to yours, then often your actions or judgement would be different.

I won't even pretend that what I'm attempting will be accepted by everyone, or even a significant number. Even if it does go somewhere there will be those who reject the idea. However, I would consider not attempting it to be immoral. After all, one of the aspects of morality involves and impact to knowledge.