The Moral Equation

I've been doing some thinking on morality, and so I derived an equation that would determine whether or not an action is "moral" or.

Here is the Equation in Pseudo Code (don't worry, I'll explain it in an easier way after)

If Gained >= Lost and Consent = True then
Moral = True
Else
Moral = False
End If

So, in plain English:
If something is Lost, than something must be gained. What is gained must be greater than or equal to what is lost. Consent must also be given. If both of these statements aren't evaluated to true, the action is immoral.

When thinking of this equation, I used some basic examples of things that we, as society, universally agree are immoral. For instance; rape. If you put rape into this equation, it evaluates to false (immoral).

Consent is not given for rape (that's what makes it rape), however some could argue that a woman may PHYSICALLY enjoy rape (as their body doesn't know the difference), even though they don't want it. Time and Energy is lost, while pleasure is gained I had to add both parts because of other situations like scamming someone. Consent IS given in a scam, but the end receiver does not gain something equal to (or greater than) what is lost.

Let's use one more example. Homosexuality. In a homosexual relationship, the things that are lost are time and energy, but what is gained is a meaningful relationship with someone you love. Consent IS given as both are agreeing to be in this relationship.

I'd like you guys to add your own thoughts, and see if you can break this equation.

I don't know if this function makes it any easier to say whether something is moral. What does it say about abortions? Embryo surely didn't consent. And the Gained >= Lost part is hard to measure..

Also, how about euthanasia? It would turn out amoral, since lost is life and gained is nothing (?). It seems moral to me though..

There's nothing to break. There's nothing resembling an attempt to quantify the variables used, how much weight each variable carries and nothing to explain why which point of view is preferable to be used in the equation.

Take white lies. Consent of the liar, yes. Consent of the one being lied at, ambiguous. Many people say they can handle the truth and yet break down in the end.

Gain, none. Preventing losses yes in the form of possible conflict. However, how do you determine which is more worthy, revealing the truth or avoiding that conflict? Again, that easily differs between people and the position they're in.

And what about personal beliefs? Some people think lies in all forms are wrong simply because it is not the truth. Some people think otherwise. How do you weigh those in the equation?

As of now my opinion is your equation is at best as subjective as moral itself is.

By the equation, all forms of imprisonment (consent a definite false) is immoral. As well as the death penalty, and killing, even in self-defense.

There's also cases where consent is impossible to obtain. Children (by law, they cannot give consent). If you claim this is ambiguous, then a KKK activist indoctrinating his children to hate blacks is completely moral (it is a gain for him, and in his view, a gain for his child and humanity since blacks and jews aren't human anyway).

The equation does not take into account the difference between gain of society and personal gain. Quite often, these two are at odds. Which is more important?

Let's take a bunch of comatose people. They can't give consent, so it is ambiguous. Let's kill all of them. Hey, they're all sucking more resources and are a net loss. So, getting rid of them is moral?

Frankly, there are things you do, even at a loss, that are moral. In fact, selflessness and the willingness to take a loss is a hallmark of many admirable actions.

Morality is what society says it is. It's not based on some ancient tablet that Hamurabi wrote next to his code of law, and God didn't tell Moses to make morality the 11th commandment. 100 years ago, it was considered immoral for women to show anything above her toes. Now that may no longer apply to certain societies, but others (such as those of the Muslim variety) still hold true to that bit of morality. If you really want to put an equation to morality, this is about as complex as it could get

A+B=C

Where 'A' equals society and 'B' equals the ideas society holds at the time, which would lead to 'C'; acceptable morals. 40 Years ago, anal sex could (arguably) have been considered the most immoral thing to do with a woman (even less so with gay men). And yet here we are, with anal sex being considered only as something extremely kinky, but socially acceptable. But again, only in certain circles. I doubt you'd find a christian man willing to stick it in his wife's ass.

Apply this with anything you think is moral/immoral, and then imagine a time where it might have been the other way around.

Is it immoral to steal food if you are starving? is it any less immoral if you steal food to feed someone else?



there is no such thing as good or evil, only thinking makes it so.

If there's something I don't believe in, it's morality. Nothing is really "right" or "wrong." People just think that because that's how they've been taught. I do this and that to get away from having a certain outcome or making it happen whether people look down upon it or praise the deed.

"Right and wrong are just words. What matters is what you do."