“what do they claim to know and how do they know it”
No amount of credentials or formal experience makes an expert not wrong if they do not have high quality evidence, that they have shown, to get their conclusions from. And an algorithm formally proven to be correct that they show they are using.
Or in the challenge trials : ethicist claims to value human life. A challenge trial only risks the lives of a few people, where even if they die it would have saved hundreds of thousands.
In this case the ” basic math” is one of multiplication and quantities, showing the “experts” don’t know anything. As you might notice, ethicists do not have high quality information as input to generate their conclusions from. Without that information you cannot expect more than expensive bullshitting.
“Ethics” today is practiced by reading ancient texts and more modern arguments, many of which have cousins with religion. But ethics is not philosophy. It is actually a math problem. Ultimately, there are things you claim to value (“terminal values”). There are actions you can consider doing. Some actions have an expected value that with a greater score on the things you care about, and some actions have a lesser expected value.
Any other action but taking the one with the highest expected value (factoring in variance), is UNETHICAL.
Yes, professional ethicists today are probably mostly all liars and charlatans, no more qualified than a water douser. I think EY worked down to this conclusion in a sequence but this is the simple answer.
One general rule of thumb if you didn’t read the above: if an expert claims to know what they are doing, look at the evidence they are using. I don’t know the anatomy of the human body enough to gainsay an orthopedic surgeon, but I’m going to trust the one that actually looks at a CT scan over one that palpates my broken limb and reads from some 50 year old book. Doesn’t matter if the second one went to the most credible medical school and has 50 years experience.
But ethics is not philosophy. It is actually a math problem.
Engineering. (You’re also making assumptions about shoulds, which might not hold in general, but I don’t think I disagree with here.**)
Any other action but taking the one with the highest expected value (factoring in variance), is UNETHICAL.
Variance and /knowledge. I.e. maximize expected value (optimize!*), /or minimize risk from being incorrect (robust!).
*As it is commonly used.
**What is right, may be a complicated question. Less people dying, though—this seems right. Though I haven’t done a cost benefit analysis. And maybe those ethicists didn’t either.
How can you check proof of any interesting statement about real world using only math? The best you can do is check for mathematical mistakes.
“what do they claim to know and how do they know it”
No amount of credentials or formal experience makes an expert not wrong if they do not have high quality evidence, that they have shown, to get their conclusions from. And an algorithm formally proven to be correct that they show they are using.
Or in the challenge trials : ethicist claims to value human life. A challenge trial only risks the lives of a few people, where even if they die it would have saved hundreds of thousands.
In this case the ” basic math” is one of multiplication and quantities, showing the “experts” don’t know anything. As you might notice, ethicists do not have high quality information as input to generate their conclusions from. Without that information you cannot expect more than expensive bullshitting.
“Ethics” today is practiced by reading ancient texts and more modern arguments, many of which have cousins with religion. But ethics is not philosophy. It is actually a math problem. Ultimately, there are things you claim to value (“terminal values”). There are actions you can consider doing. Some actions have an expected value that with a greater score on the things you care about, and some actions have a lesser expected value.
Any other action but taking the one with the highest expected value (factoring in variance), is UNETHICAL.
Yes, professional ethicists today are probably mostly all liars and charlatans, no more qualified than a water douser. I think EY worked down to this conclusion in a sequence but this is the simple answer.
One general rule of thumb if you didn’t read the above: if an expert claims to know what they are doing, look at the evidence they are using. I don’t know the anatomy of the human body enough to gainsay an orthopedic surgeon, but I’m going to trust the one that actually looks at a CT scan over one that palpates my broken limb and reads from some 50 year old book. Doesn’t matter if the second one went to the most credible medical school and has 50 years experience.
Engineering. (You’re also making assumptions about shoulds, which might not hold in general, but I don’t think I disagree with here.**)
Variance and /knowledge. I.e. maximize expected value (optimize!*), /or minimize risk from being incorrect (robust!).
*As it is commonly used.
**What is right, may be a complicated question. Less people dying, though—this seems right. Though I haven’t done a cost benefit analysis. And maybe those ethicists didn’t either.
Or they have reason to think that utilitarianism is not entirely correct.
So is objective value based on what I value, or on what you do? You are confusing with personal utility maximisation with utilitarianism.
Maybe, but you’re no longer in a position where you can complain about how people treat you.
I am saying a person who chooses an action that kills thousands of people and claims it to be ethical is probably not ethical.
(FDA delaying vaccine approvals)
Unless you can show that that was something to do with the majority of professional ethicists , you have changed the subject.