Is it possible to derive ethics from logic? They are closely

>>8863704
Is that some sort of mutant racoon? It's pretty neat.

>>8863712
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binturong

>>8863715
A fucking BEAR CAT. What a time to be alive! Thanks, senpai.

>>8863704
There exists a logical proof for the golden rule.

Yes. It only required three axioms:

Contentedness is neccecarily good
Suffering is neccecarily bad.

Then you can give any given event an index of contentedness or suffering by comparing it to other events. "How many times better than a donut is X" or "how many times worse than a slap in the face is Y" etc...

With this it's possible to give each action a net goodness/badness index to a degree, since it's impossible to calculate the absolute consequences of any action. The Most moral action is the action that causes the least suffering and the most contentedness.

>>8863704
no, you need starting axioms

Bitches don't know about my deontic logic

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-deontic/

>>8863704
Logic is a spectrum so it depends on where your ethics lie on it.

>Is it possible to derive ethics from logic?
No.

>They are closely related, aren't they?
No. Ethics are a system of desires and preferences in people. Those preferences have a complex and rich structure to them, which means you can reason about them using logic, but it doesn't derive FROM logic.

File: 1487839771668.gif (92KB, 123x136px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 123x136px

But logic itself appears to be morally good. Nothing really forces us to obey the laws of logic, however we consider logic to be the most reliable source of truth. We unanimously assign moral value to logic. Being logical is good, being unlogical is bad.

>>8864023
Morality is a spectrum.

>>8863704
>goldenrule.jpg

>>8864023
logic is a reliable system but still requires an input. If you have no starting axioms then you can logically conclude anything you want to be moral or immoral

like >>8863907 said, we can start with some simple assertions like happiness is good and pain is bad, but although everyone here would probably agree that those statements are true, the process of using logic to prove them would branch out endlessly into a tree of subjective terms and statements

>>8863704
No, of course not. But you can and should use logic in ethics.

File: All-seeing-eye-VGER-the-ultimate-hyper-intelligent-being-from-1979-Star-Trek-movie-573480 (1).jpg (40KB, 590x350px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 590x350px

>>8863704
I'm just waiting for Ethical Calculus to become a thing, so we can derive Ethics from Math.

File: 1493252949732.jpg (11KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 300x250px

>>8863726
>>8864117
The golden rule means you should treat others how they want to be treated so they will in turn treat you how you want to be treated. It isn't about treating people how you want to be treated. It has nothing at all to do with logic. You can see this when interacting with Chinese people.

>>8863704
•Ethics are moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.
•Morals are concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
•Logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

>They are closely related, aren't they?

Not in the slightest.

>Is it possible to derive ethics from logic?

No. In themselves good and evil are illogical concepts.

>>8864157
We need to go deeper. How about algebraic ethics? Or interuniversal Teichmüller ethics?

File: woha.gif (1MB, 400x288px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x288px

>>8864157
>>8864162
>not math based on ethics

>>8863704
No, you cannot derive ethics from logic. All normative judgements are rooted in emotion, not logic.

There is logic based on facts and thete is logic based on emtion. You could make the argument that only fact based logic matters, but since all fact based logic formulated by human minds is built by a biochemical machine that used emotional logic approximately 50% of the time, it would only be logical to asume emotional logic is very important.

>>8863929
The only ethical axiom I've learned is:
Always respect the will of others in an unbiased way.

My version of the golden rule, which is flawed IMO. Being unbiased means your will and desires hold the same value as everyone else's. After all, why are you more important than anyone else, scientifically that is? To answer that you'd need to judge a person and compare them to yourself, but you're not just judging a person. You're judging everything that person has done and will ever do, which can't be done with out a HUGE survaylence system, a series of metrics for judging a person's live, and last but not least the ability to see into the future. Logically, it's impossible to judge another human being, therefor logically your wills and desires are equal to everyone else's in the world. The more people, the more your will and desires diminish in importance.But opposing wills aren't always mutually exclusive. That's the trick to life, figuring out how everyone can get their way, or figuring out how we can all be satisfied with not getting our own way.