RE: Objective morality: how would it affect your judgement/actions?
May 2, 2018 at 4:39 pm
(This post was last modified: May 2, 2018 at 5:43 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
It's conceivable that matters with a moral component include both empirically observable matters and axiomatic matters. More to the point..if, as you suggest, we can arrive at moral facts the same way that we can arrive at any other fact....given the incredible utility of science and empirical observation at arriving at any other kind of fact........just what is the issue supposed to be with empiricism, science, and moral facts or values?
Wouldn't sociology, anthropology, psychology, neurology, and linguistics all have utility in that regard?
(this list isn't exhaustive)
More production esoterica and how it can illuminate both moral realism and empirically verifiable moral realism, lol-
Let's suppose I'm asked to provide insight for a local producer who's shown interest in a UVI system. I understand that the economic viability of the system depends on three assumptions.
Basil commands 75c an ounce @ 100k ounces in volume.
Tilapia commands 15c an ounce @150k ounces in volume.
Lettuce commands $20 a case @ 600 cases in volume.
Would it be ethical of me to recommend that the producer invest in a UVI system if any of those assumptions are not met in their particular circumstance? I'd say no. I'd say that I had an ethical duty to inform the producer of this first, foremost, and clearly. Any further discussion of a UVI system depends upon clearing that initial hurdle. Now. Can it be shown that my omitting those facts or misrepresenting those facts would harm the producer? OFC. They stand to lose up to $80k in their first year (total failure pretty much half and half construction and operation cost), and there may be other production systems that generate greater revenue over a five year period by quickly hitting their roi points. Comparatively..a UVI operation that does hit those marks will lose 1k their first year and return nearly $40k each consecutive year. If the producer could only hit 1/4 of those marks, it would take them 4 years to return and the fifth year they would only net $10k. In this same span of time, the operation that hit the marks will have made $160k while other..far cheaper production models would only need to return $2.25k (four out of the five years) to reach parity with the UVI systems immense upfront and operation costs.
Can I point to a published, peer reviewed paper to establish the specifics of the system, or the economic analysis? Sure can. Can I repeat the experiment? I have, three times in three states. Can you? Absolutely, how much money are you ready to lose? Every piece of the justification for why my advice to go ahead and break ground would cause harm is meticulously detailed in multiple publications and test site demonstrations spanning the northern hemisphere from the tropics to the near sub-arctic.....over decades of time. The unanimity is deafening and entirely scientific.
In what sense, in this case, would my ethical assessment not be subject to empirical demonstration, to science, or to being considered as much a fact as any other fact? Additionally, has it not been sufficiently shown, above, that persons actively posturing and selling UVI-themed paraphernalia as the new worm scam to gullible property owners and producers are a detriment to their communities, and to integrated agriculture? Does anyone have trouble concluding (axiomatically and/or empirically)that a con artist is an unethical person?
Wouldn't sociology, anthropology, psychology, neurology, and linguistics all have utility in that regard?
(this list isn't exhaustive)
More production esoterica and how it can illuminate both moral realism and empirically verifiable moral realism, lol-
Let's suppose I'm asked to provide insight for a local producer who's shown interest in a UVI system. I understand that the economic viability of the system depends on three assumptions.
Basil commands 75c an ounce @ 100k ounces in volume.
Tilapia commands 15c an ounce @150k ounces in volume.
Lettuce commands $20 a case @ 600 cases in volume.
Would it be ethical of me to recommend that the producer invest in a UVI system if any of those assumptions are not met in their particular circumstance? I'd say no. I'd say that I had an ethical duty to inform the producer of this first, foremost, and clearly. Any further discussion of a UVI system depends upon clearing that initial hurdle. Now. Can it be shown that my omitting those facts or misrepresenting those facts would harm the producer? OFC. They stand to lose up to $80k in their first year (total failure pretty much half and half construction and operation cost), and there may be other production systems that generate greater revenue over a five year period by quickly hitting their roi points. Comparatively..a UVI operation that does hit those marks will lose 1k their first year and return nearly $40k each consecutive year. If the producer could only hit 1/4 of those marks, it would take them 4 years to return and the fifth year they would only net $10k. In this same span of time, the operation that hit the marks will have made $160k while other..far cheaper production models would only need to return $2.25k (four out of the five years) to reach parity with the UVI systems immense upfront and operation costs.
Can I point to a published, peer reviewed paper to establish the specifics of the system, or the economic analysis? Sure can. Can I repeat the experiment? I have, three times in three states. Can you? Absolutely, how much money are you ready to lose? Every piece of the justification for why my advice to go ahead and break ground would cause harm is meticulously detailed in multiple publications and test site demonstrations spanning the northern hemisphere from the tropics to the near sub-arctic.....over decades of time. The unanimity is deafening and entirely scientific.
In what sense, in this case, would my ethical assessment not be subject to empirical demonstration, to science, or to being considered as much a fact as any other fact? Additionally, has it not been sufficiently shown, above, that persons actively posturing and selling UVI-themed paraphernalia as the new worm scam to gullible property owners and producers are a detriment to their communities, and to integrated agriculture? Does anyone have trouble concluding (axiomatically and/or empirically)that a con artist is an unethical person?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
