Numerical Morality

Numerical Morality

Is it okay to classify the victims of a crime or a tragedy by one of their natural identities and then ignore them or deny their victimization based on the justification (fact-based or just plain made-up) that the other people possessing that natural identity face that kind of crime or trgedy less frequently? And if you believe this is alright, do you still hold this same view when the opposite class that you're currently supporting is the one that is on the receiving end of the bullet, or does it then start to seem like discrimination? (The underlined terms can be looked up in the glossary.)

What is 'numerical morality'? This is a special kind of belief in the (supposedly) "moral" values that does not remain constant at all times and for all the people; rather it only kicks in when the person to which it is being applied to under a particular condition belongs to a specific class of people who, as a class, face that condition either above or below a particular percentage value (let's call this number the "morality threshold"). For instance, consider a male person being raped or beaten by a female person. Suppose the statistics of crime (whether based on truth or just on the bigoted redefinitions of the crime to exclude certain class of criminals) in the city, state, or country where the crime happened show that the number of male victims of rape or violence by the female perpetrators (say, 45%) is less than the number of female victims of the same crime committed by the male perpetrators (say, 55%). Then, if you're a person holding a belief in numerical 'morality' with a morality threshold value of 50%, then you'll believe that it's perfectly okay to ignore the mentioned male victim of that crime (or in general all male victims of that crime perpetrated by the females), because 45% is less than 50% (or because 55% is, yet still, more than 50%).

Is numerical morality objective in a moral sense or is it inherently bigoted? Numerical "morality" is really no morality at all. It's a concept taught by the leaders or proponents of a bigoted ideology or worldview to their blind-followers who lack self-thinking. To see why it is not natural, suppose you're walking past a street and chance upon a cop beating up a civilian for no good reason or with excessive brutality (that does happen, frequently). In your ordinary moral sense (which automatically come up when you've never been indoctrinated into believing otherwise), you'll immediately come to the conclusion that what's happening before your eyes is wrong, regardless of the natural identity of the cop or the civilian. If you're logical as well, you'll label this as wrong even if you happen to know the civilian and that civilian is one of your enemies or strong opponent at some viewpoint (something similar to, "I disagree with your opinion but I'll fight till death for your right to express it"). If, on the other hand, right after seeing what's happening in front of your eyes, your first thought of labeling it wrong or right is to start looking for a particular kind of natural identity of the civilian being beaten up and then comparing it with a particular percentage value, then that is not natural because you need those numbers to justify your moral position (even the sources of which can be questionable and prejudiced), and to justify why you took only a specific kind of natural identity (or a set thereof) into account, you need to have been enrolled into a school of that particular thought. In other words, for taking that kind of stance, you must have been indoctrinated by the bigots holding a particular view that justifies any and all harassment against a particular class of human beings. Clearly, this view is inherently bigoted.

Are people holding a view of numerical morality hypocrites too? Sometimes they're not, most often they are. If you're a person holding the view of numerical morality, how do you determine whether you're a hypocrite as well? Here's a test. Reconsider the above example of the male victim of a crime where you determine that it's alright to ignore him because 45% is less than 50%. Now, consider another scenario, that of a war on a border where the soldiers are fighting and dying for your country. There are female soldiers and there are male soldiers. Historically, almost 100% (e.g., 99.999% of American combat deaths and casualties, and similar numbers for other countries and for all the times) of the war casualties and deaths have been the male soldiers. In our example too, suppose the situation is typical and most of the people being injured are male. Since the male casualty rate is so much higher (well above your moral threshold), according to you, it must be perfectly fine to ignore the injured female soldiers altogether and care only for the male ones. If it is so, you have a sense of numerical morality (whose moral compass keep looking at the statistics and reverses itself as soon as the numbers cross the moral threshold) but you're not a hypocrite (that's the only good thing about you w.r.t. this subject). If, however, this time you change your stance and start looking for other, supposedly "deeper", rationalizations for that stance (most probably a result of your indoctrination and of blind faith in your bigoted overlords), well, you're a hypocrite.

What problems does a numerical morality create? None as long as it's just those people's viewpoint and type of thinking, and doesn't impact others. For example, you can be a teacher who is against a particular religion but as long as you do not discriminate against your students based on their religious background, it's no problem. After all, you have the freedom of having your own views. However, the numerical morality creates all kinds of problems when it gets written into the law, because then the people can no longer be treated as equals, and are classified and accordingly treated based on their particular natural identities.

I don't want to be someone with a numerical morality. What should I do? Start thinking with your own brain rather than following the bigots. Identifying those bigots that are indoctrinating you is a good starting point.

End of the document.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comment moderation is ON. Only the following types of comments will be published (and possibly replied to): Dissenting with something, proving something wrong, asking for proof of something objective, and enhancing/correcting something. Comments of praise and encouragement are read and appreciated, but won't be published; don't feel bad about that.