Trayvon Martin Case

[12thMan]

Wait, I didn't bother to read all the gibberish about computer judges? Is that right?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Wait, I didn't bother to read all the gibberish about computer judges? Is that right?

Yes, I believe RedskinRat wants to commission the development of a Perfect Judge™ computer capable of eliminating human error in our judicial system. A highly noble endeavor though he leaves much to be desired when it comes to divulging details of the system.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by saden1

Yes, I believe RedskinRat wants to commission the development of a Perfect Judge™ computer capable of eliminating human error in our judicial system. A highly noble endeavor though he leaves much to be desired when it comes to divulging details of the system.

Wow...I don't even know where to start on that one. That's deep rabbit hole.

I mean, we go down that road. Electronic priests, electronic refs, coaches, cops, clerks. You feelin me?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Wow...I don't even know where to start on that one. That's deep rabbit hole.

I mean, we go down that road. Electronic priests, electronic refs, coaches, cops, clerks. You feelin me?

Fear not 12th, for unto us an algorithm will be created. And yea, it shall be mighty and smite down prejudice, hatred and bad calls on 4th & short. The prophet RR has foretold its coming and those that doubt his words shall be mercilessly mocked for their lack of faith in the ultimate omniscience and infallibility of science.

[NC_Skins]

Coming soon to a courthouse near you.




Never mind, this guy brings the courthouse to you! Should save on legal fees in the future.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Coming soon to a courthouse near you.




Never mind, this guy brings the courthouse to you! Should save on legal fees in the future.

I didn't know the neighborhood watch had such snazzy uniforms now.

[Lotus]

Some here have maintained that ethical decisions can be expressed as mathematical equations.

My question then is, what ethical theory gets used to produce such quantification? Deontology? Bergsonian emotivism? Rawlsian theory of justice? Utiltarianism? Kantian universalism? Aristotelian virtue ethics?

One cannot talk about quantifying ethics without taking a position on ethical theory. Please tell me which theory is in play and why we should choose that mode of quantification. Or stop naively talking about quantifying ethics. One or the other will do.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Some here have maintained that ethical decisions can be expressed as mathematical equations.

My question then is, what ethical theory gets used to produce such quantification? Deontology? Bergsonian emotivism? Rawlsian theory of justice? Utiltarianism? Kantian universalism? Aristotelian virtue ethics?

One cannot talk about quantifying ethics without taking a position on ethical theory. Please tell me which theory is in play and why we should choose that mode of quantification. Or stop naively talking about quantifying ethics. One or the other will do.

Actually, no human choice is necessary - science will solve those sticky little ethical problems for us. We simply have a representative of the various schools of ethics provide unbiased oversite to the judicial rules committee that is provideing oversite to the computer programmers creating the algorithm.

Well, I guess we should have multiple representatives from each school to cancel out the bias of any one human's bias instead -

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

We would use a consortium that had no larger picture of the end product that would enable them to game the system.

So we have a consortium of programmers designing an algorithm that will dispense justice consistent with the oversight of judicial rules committee and a representative consortium of various consortiums of ethical scholars. ... I thought this would stop being funny, but I was wrong.

Have faith lotus. Science will save us from ourselves. Just as with Icarus, we can touch the sun. Oh, wait ...

And, in the end, Trayvon Martin is still dead and a fallible jury of randomly selected humans, with all their foibles, emotions, rationality and irrationality, will adjudicate the facts and apply the law in the best way they can to decide the fate of Zimmerman.

I would have it no other way.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Some here have maintained that ethical decisions can be expressed as mathematical equations.

Really? Who?

Originally Posted by Lotus

My question then is, what ethical theory gets used to produce such quantification? Deontology? Bergsonian emotivism? Rawlsian theory of justice? Utiltarianism? Kantian universalism? Aristotelian virtue ethics?

What are we using now?

Originally Posted by Lotus

One cannot talk about quantifying ethics without taking a position on ethical theory.

You're the one introducing ethics. You may be interested in the Alan Partridge Show, you remind me of a character named Simon Fisher, possibly the character was based on you?

Originally Posted by Lotus

Please tell me which theory is in play and why we should choose that mode of quantification. Or stop naively talking about quantifying ethics. One or the other will do.

You're a little late to the discussion and in no position to set terms or make demands but as I enjoy arguing I'd suggest we use the ethics currently in place.

[Lotus]

^
In post 444 of this thread, YOU made the claim that ethical decisions "can very easily be made" into mathematical equations. So that answers your question of who made that claim.

My question, however, remains unanswered: which ethical theory do we use to quantify ethical decisions, as you have maintained? And why do we use that one, rather than some other?

For example, virtue ethics approve of actions which utilitarianism abhors, and vice versa. So we need a theoretical platform to stand on before any hope of quantification can occur.

You can't claim that ethics can be quantified without knowing about ethical theory. So please show your cards on this question.