Your morality is potentially mathematically incoherent. Your moral system might imply conclusions that you yourself would find reprobate.
Before I write down the reductio of your morality, I need to know the answer to the following question.
The utility of outcomes is continuous in your moral framework. I.e. you agree with this: For any two outcomes $o_i$ and $o_k (u(o_k) > u(o_j)$, there exists another outcome o_j: u(o_i) < u(o_j) < u(o_k).
For any two $o_i$, $o_k,$ $(|u(o_i) - u(o_j)| < \epsilon (\epsilon > 0() \implies o_i$ and $o_j$ are on the same level.
I think that I found a better way to express myself.
Level 1: torture, agony. Depending on the type of torture, I could stand this level only for some second/minutes/hours.
Level 2: pain, depression, very low life quality. I could stand this level for some days/months/years.
Level 3: annoyance. I can stand this level. (especially if the annoyance is not constant.)
Level 4: Eudaimonia. I want to be in this level.
I think that to ignore human pain tolerance only to simplify our ethical system is wrong, for instance this means that I won’t tolerate years of torture to avoid annoyances, only to avoid greater/longer torture. So I think that I have different utility functions that I apply in a hierarchical order.
Then I use empathy and I don’t do to others what I won’t do to myself. Surely if someone has a different pain tolerance I will consider it. However I don’t think that someone would tolerate 50 years of torture.
Your morality is potentially mathematically incoherent. Your moral system might imply conclusions that you yourself would find reprobate.
Before I write down the reductio of your morality, I need to know the answer to the following question.
The utility of outcomes is continuous in your moral framework. I.e. you agree with this: For any two outcomes $o_i$ and $o_k (u(o_k) > u(o_j)$, there exists another outcome o_j: u(o_i) < u(o_j) < u(o_k).
For any two $o_i$, $o_k,$ $(|u(o_i) - u(o_j)| < \epsilon (\epsilon > 0() \implies o_i$ and $o_j$ are on the same level.
Do you accept the above two statements?
I think that I found a better way to express myself.
Level 1: torture, agony. Depending on the type of torture, I could stand this level only for some second/minutes/hours.
Level 2: pain, depression, very low life quality. I could stand this level for some days/months/years.
Level 3: annoyance. I can stand this level. (especially if the annoyance is not constant.)
Level 4: Eudaimonia. I want to be in this level.
I think that to ignore human pain tolerance only to simplify our ethical system is wrong, for instance this means that I won’t tolerate years of torture to avoid annoyances, only to avoid greater/longer torture. So I think that I have different utility functions that I apply in a hierarchical order.
Then I use empathy and I don’t do to others what I won’t do to myself. Surely if someone has a different pain tolerance I will consider it. However I don’t think that someone would tolerate 50 years of torture.