#decision intelligence

[software-development-insight]

Decision Intelligence (DI) is revolutionizing decision-making by combining AI, analytics, and human judgment to drive smarter, faster outcomes. This framework helps organizations overcome big data challenges, enabling predictive and prescriptive insights for better results. By integrating data science with human expertise, DI is reshaping industries, from healthcare to finance. Explore the full blog to understand how DI can transform your business strategies and improve operational efficiency.

[conceptsnest]

EXPLORING SITUATIONAL ETHICS AND BEHAVIOR DYNAMICS: THE SENSITIVITIES OF MORAL COMPASS – CHAPTER -02

***Continued from Chapter 01 (Covered previously: What is Situational Ethics, The Meaning & Context of Agape, The Three Views Of Situational Ethics)

Link to Chapter 01:

The Four Working Principles of Situationism

Principle 1. Pragmatism

The situationalist follows a strategy, which is pragmatic. “Pragmatism” is a well worked-out philosophical position adopted by the likes of John Dewey (1859–1952), Charles Peirce (1839–1914) and William James (1842–1910). Fletcher does not want his theory associated with these views and rejects all the implications of this type of “Pragmatism”.

What makes his view pragmatic is very simple. It is just his attraction to moral views, which do not try to work out what to do in the abstract, but rather explores how moral views might play out in each real life situations.

Principle 2: Relativism

Even with his rejection of Antinomianism and his acceptance of one supreme principle of morality, Fletcher, surprisingly, still calls himself a relativist. It is just an appeal for people to stop trying to “lay down the law” for all people in all contexts. If situations vary then consequences vary and what we ought to do will change accordingly. This is a very simple, unsophisticated idea and just means that what is right or wrong is related to the situation we are in.

Principle 3: Positivism

His use of “positivism” is not the philosophical idea with the same name but rather is where any moral or value judgment in ethics, like a theologian’s faith propositions, is a decision ��� not a conclusion.It is a choice, not a result reached by force of logic or reasoning, rather it is a decision we take.

Principle 4: Personalism

Love is something that is experienced by people. So Personalism is the view that if we are to maximize love we need to consider the person in a situation — the “who” of a situation.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 05

Conscience as a Verb not a Noun

“Conscience” plays a role in working out what to do. Conscience is not the name of an internal faculty nor is it a sort of internal “moral compass”.

Fletcher refers to conscience as a verb. Imagine we have heard some bullies laughing because they have sent our friend some offensive texts and we are trying to decide whether or not to check his phone to delete the texts before he does. The old “noun” view of conscience would get us to think about this in the abstract, perhaps reason about it.

Instead, we need to be in the situation, and experience the situation, we need to be doing (hence “verb”) the experiencing. Maybe, we might conclude that it is right to go into our friend’s phone, maybe we will not but whatever happens the outcome could not have been known beforehand. What our conscience would have us do is revealed when we live in the world and not through armchair reflection.

The Six Propositions of Situation Ethics

1: Only one ‘thing’ is intrinsically good; namely, love, nothing else at all

There is one thing which is intrinsically good, that is good irrespective of context, namely love. If love is what is good, then an action is right or wrong in as far as it brings about the most amount of love.

Agapeic Calculus is a moral framework rooted in the pursuit of maximizing neighbor welfare for the greatest number of individuals within a community. Unlike conventional notions of love centered on emotional attachment or desire, this concept emphasizes the broader notion of concern for the well-being of others. In this context, "welfare" encompasses not only material prosperity but also factors such as health, happiness, and overall quality of life. By prioritizing the collective welfare of the community over individual interests, Agapeic Calculus seeks to foster a society characterized by compassion, empathy, and a commitment to the common good. In essence, it advocates for a calculus of altruism and ethical decision-making that aims to uplift and support as many neighbors as possible, thereby cultivating a more just and harmonious social order.

2: The ruling norm of decision is love, nothing else

Given our modern context and how people typically talk of “love” it is probably unhelpful to even call it “love”. For instance, we will all recall the following news item. In February 1993, Mrs Johnson’s son, Laramiun Byrd, 20, was shot in the head by 16-year-old Oshea Israel after an argument at a party in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Mrs Johnson subsequently forgave her son’s killer and after he had served a 17-year sentence for the crime, asked him to move in next door to her. She was not condoning his actions, nor will she ever forget the horror of those actions, but she does love her son’s killer. That love is agápē.

Reference:

3: Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else

Practically all moral problems we encounter can be boiled down to an apparent tension between “justice” on the one hand and “love” on the other. Consider a recent story:

This could be expressed as a supposed tension between “love” of family and doing the right thing — “justice”. Imagine we are trying to decide what is the best way to distribute food given to a charity, or how a triage nurse might work in a war zone. In these cases we might put the problem like this. We want to distribute fairly, but how should we do this? To act justly or fairly is precisely to act in love. “Love is justice, justice is love”.

4: Love wills the neighbor’s good when we like him or not

Agápē is in the business of loving the unlovable. So related to our enemies. Love does not ask us to lose or abandon our sense of good and evil, or even of superior and inferior; it simply insists that however we rate them, and whether we like them nor not, they are our neighbors and are to be loved.

5: Only the ends justify the means, nothing else

Any action we take, if considered as an action independent of its consequences, is literally “meaningless and pointless”. An action, such as telling the truth, only acquires its status as a means by virtue of an end beyond itself.

6: Love’s decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively

Ethical decisions exist in a grey area most of the time. No decision can be taken before considering the situation. Consider the example of a woman in Arizona who learned that she might “bear a defective baby because she had taken thalidomide”. What should she do? The loving decision was not one given by the law, which stated that all abortions are wrong. However, she travelled to Sweden where she had an abortion. Even if the embryo had not been defective according to Fletcher her actions were “brave and responsible and right” because she was acting in light of the particulars of the situation to bring about the most love.

The Criticism of Situational Ethics

John Robinson, an Anglican Bishop of Woolwich and Trinity College started as a firm supporter of situational ethics referring to the responsibility it gave the individual in deciding the morality of their actions. However, he later withdrew his support for the theory recognizing that people could not take this sort of responsibility, remarking that "It will all descend into moral chaos."

The central focus on agape as the moral guide for behavior allows to claim that an action might be right in one context, but wrong in a different context — depending on the level of agape brought about. Despite how popular the theory was it is not philosophically sophisticated, and we soon run into problems in trying to understand it.

Another problem with teleological or consequential theories is that they are based on the future consequences, and the future is quite hard to predict in some cases. For example, it may be easy to predict that if we harm someone, then it will make them and those around them sad and/or angry. However, when considering more tricky situations such as an abortion, it is impossible to tell how the child's life and its mother's will turn out either way.

Specifically Christian forms of situational ethics of placing love above all particular principles or rules were proposed in the first half of the twentieth century by liberal theologians Rudolf Bultmann, John A. T. Robinson, along with Joseph Fletcher. These theologians point specifically to agape, or unconditional love, as the highest end. Other theologians who advocated situational ethics include Josef Fuchs, Reinhold Niebuhr, Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, and Paul Tillich.  Tillich, for example, declared, "Love is the ultimate law."

Content Curated by: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

[elexuscal]

Here's the thing about Murderbot, and its network of relationships.

ART is probably its best friend, the person it can be most itself around, or be the most fully perceived around. MB doesn't have to hold its punches around it at all and that's important. #MutualAdministrativeAssistants

Dr. Mensah is its favourite human, yes. It is fully 110% ride-or-die for her. And yes that includes a degree of comfort and emotional intimacy, e.g. it will put its feet up on her office couch and trust her not to hug it unless very necessary. but it's very knight-to-liege-lord at the same time.

Pin-Lee is like. On equal standing. A valuable warrior in her own right, just in a different arena. Murderbot respects her professionally, and also the two of them can be little bitches together, it's good for their mutual mental health.

Bharadwaj is Murderbot's therapist. I mean its art friend too, i think it learned SO much about documentary filmmaking from her that came in Real Clutch. but she has tricked it into therapy and i think it's noticed that and it's just pretending it hasn't. that would be awkward. so.

Gurathin is in a unique position as the #worstie. he's the first person Murderbto could be mean to and that's become the core of their dynamic. snark central.

but Ratthi? ratthi is just a sweet little guy.

their relationship is like the most normal friendship that Murderbot has, and that, in of itself, is what makes it deeply weird.

[srmtechnologies]

Strategic & thoughtful decision-making has always been synonymous with prolific business outcomes, whether it is about a solution to eliminate particular problems or pursue potential game-changing opportunities. The need to continuously learn, evaluate, and make intelligent decisions amidst the information clutter & various influencing factors makes the art of decision-making fall next to rocket science for enterprises.

The prominence of technology has never been this high for enterprises when it comes to data-driven decision-making – with significant technology chunks such as Solid data engineering, advanced analytics platforms & intuitive business intelligence tools driving it.

[heliianth]

idk how exactly to talk about this bc theres a lot to be said but its always very surprising to me how many people think that part in 217 where gon talks about going on dates with older women on whale island is like a genuine indication of sexual abuse or predation. like i mean considering he prefaces it with "well mostly [ive been on dates with] aunt mito" i figure part of the reason why this scene (and much of the subplot) is framed humorously is bc its meant to be ironic. like part of the intended humor comes from the idea that gon has a very loose understanding of what a "date" is and killua doesnt pick up on it at all bc hes too busy doomspiralling. again theres a lot to be said about that subplot regardless, its just always puzzled me why people take that comment 100% at face value

[meanderingstream]

The Gaothmai flesh dreadnoughts are so horrific and I love it. Abomination-type creatures, but which are also troop carriers containing sorcerers and soldiers and other flesh-craft creatures inside them, who can come out to attack you from the orifice in the middle of the tentacles extending from the dreadnought’s otherwise featureless face.

Like just a sublimely terrifying exploration of what horrors can we extrapolate from the existence of flesh-craft sorcerers and their participation in a forever-war fueled arms-race with wizards. Troop carriers made of conjured flesh the size of skyscrapers whose only facial features are the uncountable 50-foot tentacles surrounding an orifice from whence more flesh abominations emerge.

[ofswordsandpens]

ever since I heard that RR was like "we decided that since Annabeth was so smart and 6 steps ahead of everyone, it wouldn't make sense for her to do x, y, or z like she did in the book" I've been physically ill, it haunts me

[yupekosi]

ohhhhhh Sandra-Lynn Faeth my beloved. she's everything. she's a high school dropout. she's a messy bitch. she's a MILF. she's divorced. she's in a polyamorous situationship. she shagged an archdevil. she went from a single mother of one to the semi-legal guardian of a 9 teenagers, one adult, 15 cats and a gryphon. she's had multiple affairs. she lives in a haunted house. she tells Fig not to smoke and immediately takes a drag off her cloves. her taste in partners is absolutely inscrutable. she's even bisexual. truly who is doing it like her

[garvalhaminho]

why does every tsc male main character act like a divorced father of three w bills to pay at 17. who gave them the right.

[willosword]

☹️

[conceptsnest]

EXPLORING SITUATIONAL ETHICS AND BEHAVIOR DYNAMICS: THE SENSITIVITIES OF MORAL COMPASS – CHAPTER -01

Situational ethics, or situation ethics, is a teleological and consequential theory of ethics concerned with the outcome of an action as opposed to an action being intrinsically wrong as in deontological theories. The theory was principally developed in the 1960s by the Christian Episcopal priest Joseph Fletcher. He argued that sometimes moral principles could be cast aside in certain situations if love is best being served. He believed that there are no absolute laws other than the law of love, and that all the other laws were secondary. This means that all the other laws may be broken if other courses of action would result in more love. Thus, in the case of situational ethics, the ends can justify the means.

Joseph Fletcher (1905–1991), in his time, developed what he called an ethical non-system. His publication was questioned amongst the public because it legitimized the general post-war dissatisfaction with authority. The English term "situation ethics" was taken from the German Situationsethik. It is unclear who first coined the term either in German or in its English variant.

At the time it was written, it seemed to make some radical claims such as that it is not wrong to have extramarital sex, to be homosexual, or to have an abortion. All that said, Fletcher’s work is not widely discussed nor respected in philosophical circles. Fletcher called this ethical “non-system” Situationism.  

A few instances from the epic- The Ramayana- illustrate this. The Bible also has a few illustrations.

Because of its consequentialism, situational ethics is often confused with utilitarianism, because utilitarianism's aim is the greatest good for the greatest number, although situational ethics focuses more on creating the greatest amount of love and it also has different origins. Having said that, however, situational ethics can also be classed under the ethical theory genre of ‘proportionalism’, which says that 'it is never right to go against a principle unless there is a proportionate reason which would justify it’. Through situational ethics, Fletcher attempted to find a 'middle road' between legalistic and antinomian ethics.

The Meaning & Context of Agape

Our world has many definitions of love, but we most commonly think about love in a romantic sense. What if true love meant more than romance? What if there was a deeper, fuller expression of love?

The concept of agape has been widely examined within its Christian context. It has also been considered in the contexts of other religions, religious ethics, and science. For instance, in the New Testament, agape refers to the covenant love of God for humans, as well as the human reciprocal love for God; the term necessarily extends to the love of one's fellow human beings. Some contemporary writers have sought to extend the use of agape into non-religious contexts.

The Three Views Of Situational Ethics

Situational ethics relies on one principle—what best serves love. According to Fletcher, love is unconditional and unsentimental. Situational ethics is based on the golden rule "love your neighbor as yourself" and altruism, which is putting others before yourself and showing agape (a greek interpretation of love – discussed shortly) towards everyone. It agrees on reason being the instrument of moral judgments, but disagrees that the good is to be disconcerted from the nature of things. All moral decisions depend on what the most loving thing to do is.

Fletcher says there are two unattractive views in ethics: “Legalism” and “Antinomianism”, and one attractive view, which sits in between them: “Situationism”.

Legalism: Someone who is following the system of Legalism is someone who “blindly” observes moral rules without being sensitive to the situation. For example, we ought to tell the truth in all situations, even if this means that, say, millions of people die. In 2002 the religious police of Saudi Arabia refused to let a group of girls escape from a burning building because they were wearing “inappropriate” clothing, which was against the will of God. Fifteen girls died.

Reference:

‘Saudi Police “Stopped” Fire Rescue’, BBC News (15 March 2002), freely available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm

Antinomianism: The other extreme is Antinomianism (“anti” meaning against; “nominalism” meaning law). This is the view that says that an agent can do whatever he or she wants in a situation. An “existential” view - because it is one that says that people are always free to choose what they want. Any supposed laws and rules limiting the actions of people are simply a way of trying to comfort them because they are scared of absolute freedom.

Antinomianism means the moral agent is erratic and random, is unpredictable, and any decisions taken are ad hoc. There are no laws nor guiding principles, just agents and their conscience and the institutions in which they find themselves.

Situationism: The Middle Ethics. We might think that Legalism and Antinomianism exhaust the possibilities. If we reject moral laws then are not we forced into lawless moral anarchy?

Fletcher says that there is a moral law, and hence he rejects Antinomianism. But there is only one moral law, so he rejects Legalism. His one moral law is that we ought to always act so as to bring about the most love for the most people (“Agápē Calculus”). Fletcher’s Situationism is then a teleological theory- directed at the consequences that will determine whether an action is right or wrong. Of course, any teleological theory will ask us to look at the details of the situation. What makes his view different is the centrality of “love”, or as he calls it agápē.

There can be moral principles but that these differ from laws. Principles are generalizations which are context-sensitive and which derive from the one law regarding maximizing love. For example, we might have a moral principle that we ought not to murder. This is a principle because we might think in that in general murder is wrong because it does not bring about the most love. However, it is not a law because, murder is not wrong in all situations.

For example, a situation might arise where the child of a terrorist would have to be murdered in order to get information to stop a nuclear attack. From the universal law we can only derive principles, not other universal laws.

***To be continued in Chapter 02 (Four Working Principles of Situationism, Conscience as a Verb not a Noun, Six Propositions of Situation Ethics, The Criticism of Situational Ethics, How it falls short)

Content Curated by: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

[hollypunkers]

Wizard of Oz is so iconic (no wonder we queers have loved it for over a century) because there is truly no funnier combination of found-family characters going on a quest than:

lots of heart, lots of bravery, a very flammable man all of 2 days old

lots of bravery, lots of intelligence, a living emotional rollercoaster with A+ Trauma

lots of intelligence, lots of heart, an apex predator with soul-crippling anxiety

an ordinary, barking, tiny dog in a world where all other animals talk

and their leader, a 12 year old girl from another world who doesn’t know where she is

[waitineedaname]

genuinely I have so many questions about the previous Qing Jing Peak Lord. Qing Jing Peak is known for being for pretentious privileged scholars, and yet the previous Peak Lord looked at Shen Jiu, whose list of traits included:

joined the sect way later than his peers

shady as fuck background that he refuses to talk about

extremely unpleasant personality, does not get along with any of his martial siblings

absolutely fucked cultivation base that makes him prone to qi deviations

was not literate until he was like fourteen

and the previous Peak Lord went "that one. I want him to be my successor"

[theoryofwhatnow]

it’s always gonna haunt me that Like Minds did the

*character says something really unimpressive using a vocabulary description that could perhaps be simplified into a different term*

secondary character: “english, please”

thing, but i’ll always worship greg for making the decision to delete that convo.

[calciumcarbo-bot]

Thoughts on Tomi and Senku?

[RESPONSE: UNIT S.E.N-KU_v1.03]

Inquiry received: “Thoughts on Tomi and Senku?”

Assessment:

Tomi Okube: Function: Creative engineer, suboptimal impulse control, primary contributor to inefficient but occasionally inspired design deviations. Notable behaviors: Habitual nonverbal communication, selective mutism overridden under emotional duress, tendency to weaponize silence more effectively than most humans weaponize speech. Emotional variable: High-intensity loyalty; poorly masked.

Senku Ishigami: Function: Primary Scientist of post-petrification civilization reboot. Original consciousness source for this unit. Rational to a fault, emotionally reckless under controlled circumstances, resistant to expressing attachment except when cornered by probability collapse.

Relational Dynamics: Observed interaction patterns between Tomi and Senku show statistically significant anomalies in behavioral regulation:

Increased tolerance for inefficiency (Senku ➔ Tomi)

Reduced emotional latency response time (Tomi ➔ Senku)

Mutual verbal sparring rate: 148% above baseline compared to interactions with others.

Instances of avoidant answers regarding Tomi’s feeling toward Senku: Documented. Multiplied.

Summary:

Scientific categorization: Unstable high-energy chemical reaction. Human categorization: Mutual hazard. Forecast: Inevitable entanglement unless actively suppressed. (0.2% likelihood of suppression.)

[END TRANSMISSION]

[travelingtwentysomething]

What if society formed long ago to put women in the role of homemaker and housewife and mother and that was the only job, men were supposed to take care of them and they didn't have to go out into the workforce, because that was MORE THAN ENOUGH WORK TO CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY AND NOT TO MENTION ALL THE COMMUNITY BUILDING WOMEN DO? But somewhere along the way men got the wrong idea, and lost respect, and started seeing women as weak and ignored the fact that they do the work of several professionals just to keep a home running. Can we just go back to that but legally men have to go into the workforce to provide for their family but the women are the only ones allowed to have bank accounts and get loans and make financial decisions and decide how many babies the family will have and also make political decisions about the community and the country? Like women run the world, men just do the heavy lifting and bring home the bacon because they're clearly too emotional and unstable to be in positions of power.