ethical median maximalism is the theory that instead of working out which things are individually ethical you should just try to determine the average of whether you should do the thing and then if it’s no you should stop doing things and if it’s yes you should do all the things. This theory is also sometimes called second-order or dereferenced kantianism, with third-order kantianism being the idea that basically always
uh…
I know people *say* philosophy asks unanswerable questions and seeks to be deliberately obtuse, but aren’t ethical frameworks usually supposed to come up with like… an actual answer?
that people can use?
This seems like a convoluted way to get to “Do anything” or “Do Nothing” and I think I just answered my own question.
randomized ethical median maximalism was created in response to ethical median maximalism by scholars skeptical of the idea that humans could or should, or, for that matter, shouldn’t, wherein once you’ve determined the average of whether you should do the thing you can apply that as a random chance of whether you should do the thing instead. Continuous randomized ethical median maximalism adjusts this based on circumstances by repeatedly multiplying the chance that you should by (1+epsilon) if you should’ve and (1-delta) if you shouldn’t’ve. I hope that helps.
please note that the theory of probability is a separate and complex field of its own that I
should not at this time explain
Tags:
#philosophy #anything that makes me laugh this much deserves a reblog #unreality cw? #this post was queued because my to-reblog list is too long and I didn’t want to dump it on you all at once
Brinens and Things 