Is mathematics dangerous ethically?

Question

Isn't it too easy to make a person a number. To lay them off, to write them off as casualties ect. It just seems so dangerous. Look at the Nazis they loved math, and logic, hmm im very wary of this worship of math we have in our society. Remember Atlantis.

I debate the value of 1. To me it is ownership.

Mathematics devalues everything that it comes in contact with. That includes medicine, ect.

Answer 1

I agree with dryheatdave

but how about a surprise
============================================
MATHEMATICS COULD BE THE SAVIOR OF ETHICS
============================================
give me 10 minutes & i'll elaborate


Ethical reasoning requires the consideration of values.
If we represent the values numerically,
we can use standard mathematical operations
to manipulate them,
and hopefully produce an answer
which we can use to guide our actions.


An example

I am considering committing an illegal act.
I know that I can perform this act: the problem is how to handle the uncertainty as to whether I'll get caught by the police and punished.
I consider that there are three possible outcomes
(assuming that I decide to do this act).

Outcome 1: I perform the act and do not get caught by the police.

Outcome 2: I perform the act, get caught by the police, and get found guilty and punished by the courts.

Outcome 3: I perform the act, get caught by the police, but get found "not guilty" by the courts.

The other alternative is that I choose inaction (outcome "0"). The situation is modelled by this tree:

http://www.mypicshare.com/6rh6jddhpic.html

The tree consists of nodes and links.

A node represents a situation,

and a link indicates which situations can follow from which previous situations.

The triangular nodes (called "payoff nodes") represent outcomes, and are numbered as above.

The square node at the top (the root node "r") represents my position. It is square because it represents a choice I can make (it is a "decision node"):

I can choose to do the act and go down the path to "a",
or I can choose inaction and go down the other.

The circular nodes represent situations which are resolved by chance, and are called "chance nodes".

Chance node "a" represents the situation in which I choose to do the action; it leads to node "1" where I get away with it, and to node "c" where I get caught.

The number by a link from a chance node indicates the (estimated) probability of that link being followed, given that we are already in the position above.

(For example, it only makes sense to talk about the probability that I get caught in the case where I do choose to do the action - I don't get to position "a" until I've decided to act; and nodes "2" and "3" can only be reached from "c" - they can't try me if they don't catch me.)

The next step is to estimate the value for each situation represented by a payoff node.

When estimating, we must consider intensity, duration, and extent of the interests involved (as compared to a baseline: usually inaction) - basically everything except certainty. I consider that, if I choose not to do the act, then everything continues as before: inaction has the value 0. I consider the value of my action (ignoring any cost to me) to be 1 [2], the value of being tried as -0.2 (due to the inconvenience etc), and the value of being tried, found guilty and punished as -2. [3] This gives the payoff values

Node "0": 0
Node "1": 1
Node "2": 1 + (-2) = -1
Node "3": 1 + (-0.2) = 0.8

We can now calculate the tree value, and from this learn which "branch" I should pick:

I could, in a larger analysis, have many other branches (links) from the root node, indicating things I could choose to do instead of the particular act that I'm thinking of.

I would then choose the node with the highest value.

The values are calculated from the bottom up.

A decision node has the largest of the values of the nodes that follow from it - it is assumed we always choose to do what we think is most valuable.

A chance node has an "expected" value [4] which is sum of the values of its sub-nodes, multiplied by their respective probabilities.

In this example, the expected value of "c" is:
===================================
(the probability of reaching node "2" * the value of node "2") + (the probability of reaching node "3" * the value of node "3")
= (0.75 * -1) + (0.25 * 0.8)
= -0.75 + 0.2

= -0.55

The expected value of "a" can now be calculated as:
==========================================
(the probability of reaching node "1" * the value of node "1") + (the probability of reaching node "c" * the value of node "c")
= (0.8 * 1) + (0.2 * -0.55)
= 0.8 + (-0.11)

= 0.69

The next node up being a decision node, its value is simply the largest of node "a" and node "0":
max(0.69, 0) = 0.69.

Since the expected value for node "a" is higher than that for node "0",

and "a" represents what happens when I do this action,
the tree therefore indicates that I should do the action (in preference to not doing it).

If I could create a tree for a different course of action which (when using the same scale) returns a value greater than 0.69, then obviously I ought do that instead

Answer 2

if 2+2=worship Satan, I would say yes.

I don't think Mathematics are dangerous ethically because anything that is figured out with mathematics is right. If an answer in mathematics is wrong, it is because the problem wasn't worked correctly, and on the fault of math itself.

But this is a difficult question for one main reason: Numbers are exact, ethics are ambiguous. Ethics are constantly in debate about what they should or should not be, but no one will debate the value of 1.

Added on 8/6/2007:
There is nothing wrong with number themselves. Number to nothing more than represent values in reality. Yes, I've heard the old saying that "1 death is a tragedy, but 1,000,000 deaths is a statistic". That holds true, but It is not so much the numbers themselves as how people precisive them. It's the people that remove the value of the human life from the statistics, not the numbers.

And no, saying that the Nazi's used something is no an automatic indicator that something is Evil. You know how else loves to use numbers? Math majors. are all Math majors Nazi's?

Answer 3

No, I don't remember Atlantis, and I don't know of any living person who does--but consider this: Just how safe are you not to understand mathematics in a world where someone else does? It would sort of put you at their mercy don't you agree?

Besides, the technology which you are enjoying right now is brought to you by mathematics. I don't know where this world would be without math. Ethically dangerous, NO--people can be ethically dangerous, but not mathematics! And take a look at the history of religion if you really want to see something which has been used to wipe millions of people off the face of the Earth!

Answer 4

How can you believe that mathematics devalues everything, including medicine? Explain to me how you will know the correct dosage of life saving drugs based on a person's weight without overdosing, without using mathematics. Most of Chemistry is math. Most of Physics is Math. Engineering - math. You would not be driving the most safely engineered cars on the safest highways without years of research and lab work that involved math. The power plants that supply the electricity you are using to power your computer - math. Farmers and ranchers use math on the job, calculating how much irrigation per field, how many bales of hay per animal, how much fencing, to try to bring their products to the market at a price that will enable them to live and you to be able to afford their goods.

As I am about to graduate with a bachelors of science in mathematics, qualified to teach mathematics to your future doctors, I am offended.

Those who understand mathematics have a certain power, and with power comes responsibility. Would you rather do without all the things I've listed above, just to keep a type of power out of the hands of those who MIGHT misuse it, even though the ones who put it to good use make your life so much better, easier, and safer?

Answer 5

Your idea/concept/understanding of mathematics is disturbingly wrong... Indifference and greed makes people only numbers, not math...! Math is only a tool. In most cases mathematics bring light to issues. It makes it possible to understand and correct ethical problems more often than not!
And by the way, Nazis were more of a religion/idealism, than a political party which they only later became. Read more on the subject from a political science and historical approach... Most people have wrong ideas about the Nazi as you have... Their evil was not based on science, but a disturbed type of radical faith! It is a shame most lack that understanding which could save us from repeating it!

Answer 6

Mathematics and ethics cannot be linked in the same sentance in such a way, its like asking 'Is music visually dangerous?'

The only ethics in mathematics are balance, and problem-solving in a logical mannor, I.e. The balancing and solving of equations.

Being accurate (with mathematic precision) and being ethical are null-compatable, as one is dependant on objectiveness, and the other on subjectiveness.

Sure there are intentions, and means to use what maths achieves, like as you mentioned with the Nazis, but that is not maths, that's politics.

The number-crunchers don't murder or harm people (at least not deliberately, to the best of my knowledge) that's not what they're paid to do..! ;)

Answer 7

I remember learning that it was once thought injurious to moral development, to teach algebra before the age of 12, but I never knew why. I don't see a problem with it.
Of course mathematics can be used in an unethical manner, but so can any branch of learning. That doesn't mean that it is unethical by nature.

Answer 8

The Nazi's perverted math. Math is dangerous to falsehood and deception. This is because it provides ways to reveal truth that are difficult to disprove.

In America we are visited by a West Nile virus. I think it has killed 5 people this year. Influenza kills about 20,000 each year. West Nile is getting headlines every day and States are spending big money to control mosquitoes. But those of us who know basic math know this is a ruse. Pity us who know basic math.

The US government is rushing to insure children. While this is laudable, children do not get seriously ill at the rate older people do. So insuring children is a way to hide the fact that insured people in the US are in sharp decline. Note that everyone dies so there is a logarithmic rise in medical needs as people get older. Math helps unravel this kind of deception.

Answer 9

arithmetic, as utilized by means of maximum individuals, alongside with scientists and technologists, is barely a gadget. A hammer is a gadget. some human beings have used hammers to kill others. could the hammer be banned? For scientists interpreting arithmetic themselves (as a technological expertise, not a gadget), that's conceivable to do arithmetic without employing the particularly quantity a million. Banning it as you recommend could be like banning nails simply by fact hammers are used in some murders.

Answer 10

Math does not solve spiritual problems. You are describing spiritual problems.

The Will is positive, the Judgment is negative.