Ethics as central processing?

[lennartack]

as humans always come along with a range of different moral assumptions, this is why a computer would only ever be great for one person

Like I said:

There exists no best theory of ethics. Ethics differ from culture to culture and from person to person. A central ethical unit sounds like a dangerous thing. Why not build a personal ethical assistant, which you can give your own ruleset?

But political parties often share the same moral assumptions, so they could have a computer to calculate moral problems according to their ideology.

- who could just as well decide for himself, rather than given the job to his personal computer.

Yes, just like any calculations these days that are done by computers, we could just as well do them ourselves. So according to your argument we should stop using computers. The Voice and I have already given many arguments why a computer would make moral problems easier.

Computers deal with quantity. Moral variables deal with quality.

You claim there is a difference between quality and quantity. I claim there is only a real difference between ratio and emotion. If you reason about a moral problem rationally, qualitative variables can perfectly be described by quantitative variables and human reasoning by algebraic rules. In fact, we often already describe quality with numbers, like school grades. Quantification of quality is the first step in creating an objective way of looking at moral problems. The next step is to let a computer solve problems with our quantified variables.

[chaz wyman]

as humans always come along with a range of different moral assumptions, this is why a computer would only ever be great for one person

Like I said:

There exists no best theory of ethics. Ethics differ from culture to culture and from person to person. A central ethical unit sounds like a dangerous thing. Why not build a personal ethical assistant, which you can give your own ruleset?

But political parties often share the same moral assumptions, so they could have a computer to calculate moral problems according to their ideology.

- who could just as well decide for himself, rather than given the job to his personal computer.

Yes, just like any calculations these days that are done by computers, we could just as well do them ourselves. So according to your argument we should stop using computers. The Voice and I have already given many arguments why a computer would make moral problems easier.

Computers deal with quantity. Moral variables deal with quality.

You claim there is a difference between quality and quantity. I claim there is only a real difference between ratio and emotion. If you reason about a moral problem rationally, qualitative variables can perfectly be described by quantitative variables and human reasoning by algebraic rules. In fact, we often already describe quality with numbers, like school grades. Quantification of quality is the first step in creating an objective way of looking at moral problems. The next step is to let a computer solve problems with our quantified variables.

Blah, blah, blah.
If you think it is possible, then think of the most basic, simple and primitive moral question and write a bit of code to show how a computer could do better than a human in finding an answer to it.
Go ahead! It ought to be easy enough to demonstrate.