Scott Raney metamerman at gmail.com
Fri Nov 25 13:08:38 EST 2016

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Michal Štěpánek
<agora.ekklesia at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have made some changes, see the link again please. Reading the abstract
> may be enough ( 80 words).
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jjQ46EYr9bWSF30RAaEn0p_lvyLGxyAXigTZrWKxQa8/edit?usp=sharing

Umm, you left "matchism" off the list of possible philosophical
metrics ;-) The way that would work would be that The People would
collectively decide "goodness". based on its effects on others (levels
of stress/happiness/perception of fairness/etc.) It would contain a
form of consequentialism (which is not really a philosophy, but merely
an axiom within a more complete system), but is very unlike
utilitarianism, which doesn't allow for the kinds of inequality that
humans (and all other social animals) are perfectly comfortable with,
yet also unlike libertarian or anarchist ethics which lack the kind of
global assessment that matchism requires. The assessment would be also
unlike what you've proposed: You don't ask people individually what
they'd like (because there's no way to aggregate that data across
individuals in order to make a decision), you merely ask them their
*personal* level of stress and happiness as it relates to the domain
of the decision. It would be up to everyone else to decide whether
that level, aggregated across the population using whatever method
their brains are wired to use, is acceptable.

> cheers
> m.

More information about the Start mailing list