The Math of Morality: 'P' for Proximity

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 proximity of a morally measurable action, which I gave the variable 'P'.

'P' is the value that denotes whether the person(s) affected by the action would have been involved in the effect if they had taken no action themselves. This one could be considered obvious, but I'll explain it for the sake of clarity.

First let me say that it is wrong to pull someone into a situation against their consent. Whatever you were trying to accomplish is negated by your forcing them into the situation against their will. Any action is an individual choice, and unilaterally forcing someone into an action is wrong, regardless of how noble your reasons may feel.

Second is that even if a person has the ability to take the action, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a moral imperative that they do. Individual circumstances make such a decision a helluva lot more complicated than just personal sacrifice. Now, onto the details.

'P' is a multiplier. However, it's a multiplier that denotes a moral penalty for involving someone in an action that wouldn't have been affected if you had not done so. Also, the penalty must be greater than the reward you would have received if the person had been involved. As with many other variables, this one will require a detailed post of its own, but not here.

P = 1, or N sub-[X] +1

'P' equals 1 if the person was involved in the situation whether you had taken the action or not, and 'P' equals 'N sub-[X] +1' if your action involved them in the situation. 'N sub-[X]' denotes the number who received the opposite effect from you involving the uninvolved in your action.

To give an example to clarify it more, the study I spoke of in the first paragraph of my opening post on this talks about two situations. One involves a "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", and the other would involve putting someone into the situation against their will. With my 'P' multiple, there would be a moral penalty for the sacrifice with the "needs of many scenario" but still a positive result, but by including the one person in your action against their will you negate all of the positive result and end up with only the negative for including that person in your action against their will.

To break it down into "bite size" you can think of it this way. In the first case a group of people or one could have died, but you made a conscious decision to sacrifice the one. Since the group was six, this means the morality result would have been the same as if you saved five. However, in the second scenario six people would have died and one wouldn't have if you'd taken no action, so if you threw the one in danger onto the tracks you didn't save the six, you just killed the one.

I will explain this in further detail in my next post, but this, in essence, is how to define the value for 'P'. In my next post I'll put 'E', 'N', and 'P' together so you an see the equation as a whole, but it won't stop there. As I said, morality isn't as simple as the Pythagorean theorem.