Assume we have a model for the moral landscape F(x,y,z) is a continuous function

And we’re trying to maximize “well-being” - then it becomes a navigation problem (Sam Harris quote) and we can use science to guide us and determine what is morally wrong or morally acceptable.

Some people call this a form of utilitarianism (correct me if I’m wrong)

Now:

We use vector identities to calculate the gradient, divergence and curl

And find the coordinates of the local maxima, local minima and saddle points

Now we can consider them as moral “values” and our actions “virtues”

_____________________________________________________________________

I’m not trolling. Please discuss, or perform an exorcism on me.

It’s not continuous, it doesn’t even have a fixed set of variables as the number of degrees of freedom we can influence to change our well-being increase with technology.

It’s an interesting notion.

I think you need something more specific and more quantifiable than ‘well being’. If human morality had some tangible and measurable substrate it would not be the puzzle that it is.

Twissel - 06 June 2018 09:24 PM

It’s not continuous, it doesn’t even have a fixed set of variables as the number of degrees of freedom we can influence to change our well-being increase with technology.

“Assume”

navigating on surfaces described by a function is trivial. Mapping moral terms on mathematical constructs is not a good idea at all.
If there was a way to create an actual moral landscape, the best method would be to create as many subgroups as possible and Monte-Carlo to get to a better place - the chance to get stuck in local optima is way too high.