You are using a bastardized definition of "morality".Logik wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:35 amAu contraire. If philosophers are involved chances are that the word "morality" and "evil" is either meaningless or so esoteric as to be useless. Surely a precise definition in Mathematics is better than an ambiguous definition in English?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:24 am Note this is a philosophy forum.
The terms morality [good] versus evil has significant meanings.
I had stated the issue of is-ought is most critical in terms of the Philosophy of Morality.
Morality.png
Hospital B was immoral in 2001 and 2002. In 2003 it became the paragon, so hospital A became immoral.
That's implementation detail. It doesn't matter because - equifinality.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:01 am I maintain setting up, adopting and maintaining the holistic system is critical.
The system could be along the principles of the Plan Do Check Act [PDCA] Model or some more sophisticated system model.
The contrast is where one do not operate on any system but rather on a haphazard basis.
Since both Hospital A and B are adopting the system and doing the best they can given their circumstances, there is no issues with their results.
Whatever works in getting that blue line towards 0 as fast as possible.
That's morality.
My focus is not on implementation details.
My focus was the adoption of a vision and mission in setting and maintaining the holistic system.
Results and reaching 0 as fast as possible in not critical.
At present hospital B may be performing better.
In 20 years time both could have similar results.
Thereafter, 30, 50, 70 years, the results could alternate and mixed due to various reasons.
What is critical as I had stated is whether they are adopting the right is-ought model, and in this case they are.