The Math of Morality

Basic morality is simple. All those things that hurt others are wrong, and all of those things that help others is right. It's even been shown, in a relatively recent study, that almost everyone has the same basic morals. Those studying it refer to it as a "moral grammar", but it seems to me that it's an equation. There's a finite number of details involved that form the variables, and the end result is either positive (X), neutral (0), or negative (-X).

However, for each individual variables get added to the equation as they mature. A combination of governmental laws, religion, society, family, and friends add variables until the equation becomes different for each person. In many cases the end equation isn't even internally consistent, because some variables can override others.

I'll admit that I have a preference for math over grammar. Math is precise, and its language doesn't have problems with translation, dialect, and definition. Regardless of the individual characteristics of a person the Pythagorean theorem still has all of the same variables, and everyone will get the same result when calculating it correctly. When trying to get a result you don't have to change any of the variables to fit with what those around you understand. (Note: Yes I understand that explaining an equation would require language, but I'm referring to the equation itself.)

The reason I think math can better define morality than grammar is the issue of internal consistency. When I visit my parents my dialect shifts. It's subconscious, but I use words differently, in ways that those where I grew up better understand. However, regardless of whether I'm at work, at home, or where I grew up equations remain the same. I like consistency, especially for something as important as morality.

I've done quite a bit of thinking about this. Since I became an atheist I've become much more introspective. One of the criticisms of atheism is that it provides no moral objectivity, which is true. However, I've come to realize that atheism itself is amoral. Actions, not beliefs, define morality, and atheism is simply the belief that no deities exist. Recognizing that, I started breaking down actions to figure out what components of an action shift the result on my moral scale. Here is what I've come up with.

The primary component would be effect, which I've assigned the variable 'E'. This value would also range from a negative to positive number, and it would correspond to how limited or extensive the effect is.

The secondary component would be number affected, which I've assigned the variable 'N'. This value is simply a measure of how many received the effect.

The tertiary component would be proximity, which I've assigned the variable 'P'. This value denotes whether those affected could have receieved the same effect if you had taken no action. Did your action involve them in the effect, or would they possibly have received the effect if you had taken no action.

Finally, the result would be the action's morality. I've assigned this the variable of 'M'. The value of this component would range from a negative to positive number. Since 0 would be an amoral result, then the further from zero the value is the more immoral or moral the action would be.

There you have it. My basic equation for morality. Of course, it's more detailed than that, but I intend on going deeper into each variable/value in future posts. With each variable I'm going to build the equation until I reach the final post where I'll give examples of how it applies.

I also fully expect that some will be insulted at this idea; that math can be applied to right and wrong. I'm also half-vulcan. Morals are a phenomena of interest to me, and regardless of what I find it will make them no less important. Besides, a fair number of people are already subconsciously doing what I'm attempting to quantify. They're applying math to morality, just in a more vague way. Otherwise, why would they use the term "values"?