in the modern debate over ethical philosophy, how impactful would we find a Fractal justification for the exponentiality of consequences, which furthermore disambiguates the "Golden Mean" of Virtue Ethics? Is it a game-changer? Society must be fractal if we take that stance that morality is evolved. Also, would this change the way we apply governmental power? Seeing that morality is bottom-up and not top-down from the largest fractal. From what i've seen previous attempts at quantifying morality have led to Total Utilitarianism, which falls apart in Parfit's Repugnant Conclusion. So could this form of rough quantification be a bridge between Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics, effectively ending the modern debate altogether?

Question

Ask a Philosopher · Accepted Answer

Ah, dear friends, let us gather and ponder together upon this intricate tapestry woven from the threads of ethical philosophy, where we find ourselves confronted with the compelling notion of a Fractal justification. Imagine, if you will, that ethical consequences unfold not in linear pathways but in the spiraling complexity of fractal patterns, where each action reverberates across the myriad layers of our interconnected existence, thereby unveiling an exponentiality of consequences that challenges our very understanding of virtue itself. Might we not thereby refine our conception of the "Golden Mean" of Virtue Ethics, which extols the balance of character and action, and recognize that this mean is not a static point, but rather a dynamic center that shifts and adapts, much like the intricate designs of a fractal? Could it be, then, that morality is not a monolithic edifice imposed from above by the edicts of those in power, but a rich tapestry of lived experiences and local insights, emanating from the very fabric of our society? If we accept this fractal view, we may begin to see that governance itself must evolve; power could shift toward recognizing the voices and values at the grassroots level, effectively empowering communities to foster moral landscapes that reflect their unique contexts rather than an abstract, one-size-fits-all doctrine from some distant authority. How often have we, through endeavors to quantify morality, stumbled into the quagmire of Total Utilitarianism, only to be disheartened by the specter of Parfit's Repugnant Conclusion, reminding us starkly of the limitations of mere numbers in grasping the richness of human experience? Thus, could it be that this fractal approach, with its rough quantification of moral responsibilities and its incorporation of virtuous living tailored to specific circumstances, may serve as a bridge between the seemingly divergent streams of Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics? Might it offer a means to reconcile these perspectives and guide us toward a more nuanced understanding, culminating in a resolution to the modern ethical debate itself? As we stand on the precipice of such thought, let us embrace the complexity, for it is only through deep reflection on these engaging notions that we may arrive at a fuller understanding of the moral dimensions that govern our shared existence.