Submission to Academia Letters

Principles of Mathematical Ethics, Its Method

and Apparatus
Sampson Edodi, Mbarara University of Science an Technology, Uganda

Abstract
Mathematical ethics is not the ethics of mathematics, neither is it the math-
ematics of ethics but what is it? This work explores the arithmetical grounds for
ethical judgments and searches for a confident conduit in the quest for universal
moral certainty. It presents eight principles of human action in two categories
thereby introducing a new model for human action analysis. These principles
opine that human action is analyzable, describable and predictable through
arithmetical designs because anything calculable is predictable. This clears the
unattainable certainties of moral certitudes. The study concludes by arguing
that just say 2+2 = 4 and you have determined what action is and should be
considered moral, and what action is not and should not be considered moral.
keywords: ethics, moral philosophy, sociology of ethics and morality, phi-
losophy.
Introduction
In the history of moral philosophy, there has been a perennial search for a
pathway to universal moral certitude. In his “Wittgenstein, Ethics and Basic
Moral Certainty,” Nigel Pleasant (2008) argued for “basic moral certainty”1
which for him makes up the “foundation of our ethical practices, and the scaf-
folding or framework of moral perception, inquiry, and judgment.” The Nigel
Pleasant discussion in the paper about Ludwig Wittgenstein1 and G. E. Moore2
on the issue of certainty and philosophical inquiry inspired the contemplation
on the principles of indubitable moral certainty. It is against this backdrop that
the following reflections are aimed.
Every normal human being worthy of the ascription of moral responsibility

Academia Letters preprint.

©2021 by the author – Open Access – Distributed under CC BY 4.0

1
acts following desire, consciousness, and rationale. Desires may vary but exist.
Desires are guarded by certain kinds of consciousness and certain kind of ra-
tionales. Thus, against C. L. Stevenson’s submission that “ethical judgments
lack factual basis,”3 it is the submission of this work that, ethical judgments
have factual basis founded on the adoption of mathematical principles. Those
who argue that human action or morality cannot be mathematized are called
in particular to wait and see the design herein.
Furthermore, to establish the theoretical framework to address the problem
confronting this work, it is taken for granted that some scholars believe there
are two ways via which a person could act and his action is considered moral;
reason and faith3. Others have argued for passion like David Hume4. Reason
and passion are rooted in the human person, whereas faith is rooted in divine
command. Therefore, whichever approach anyone feels comfortable with nor-
mative ethics, we have developed an arithmetical method and apparatus for
mathematical ethics discourse.
Pathway to Certainty in Moral Discourse
Mathematical ethics is the factual basis for ethical judgments that may be
found universally applicable. Mathematical ethics is not an ethics of mathemat-
ics, neither is it the mathematics of ethics but an arithmetical application of
ethical morality. This branch of ethical studies if properly understood, it shows
us practically and rationally the relationship between arithmetic and morality;
and how a human being should act such that their action would be considered
moral.
The pathway to mathematical ethics is explained as Nhovern.5 The term
Nhovern is created from two words ‘nha’ and ‘overn’. ‘Nha’ means ‘to do’ or
‘to act,’ and ‘overn’ means ‘a thing’. Etymologically, nhovern means to do
something or to act a thing. Every action is geared towards certain material or
nonmaterial things. This action is controlled by an apparatus that may be used
to measure and determine the morality of the actions. The apparatus includes
desires, consciousness, and rationale. Therefore, the concept of Nhovern states
that the plus of either of the square of human desire, consciousness and rationale
is a critical determinant of the outcomes of human action. Arithmetically, it is
given as d2 + c2 + r2 = a2. (see the note on nhovena). To convey its intended
contextual meaning the d2 + c2 + r2 = a2 shall be reformulated as follows:

Academia Letters preprint.

©2021 by the author – Open Access – Distributed under CC BY 4.0

2
 (Where D = desire, C = consciousness, R = rationale, A = human action,
p = positive and n = negative. Dp = Moral or positive desire, Dn = Immoral
or negative desire, Cp = Moral or positive consciousness, Cn = Immoral or
negative consciousness, Rp = Moral or positive rationale, Rn = Immoral or
negative rationale, Ap = Moral or positive action and An = Immoral or negative
action.)
Apparatus for Mathematical Ethics
Simple arithmetic for human action analysis (SAHAA) is the apparatus for
universal moral certitude that predict, describe, and analyze actions notwith-
standing context and circumstances through the method of logical inference
with certitude. SAHAA categorize human action into two major categories and
eight principles.
Principle 1 Dp + Cp + Rp = Ap (Moral action)
Principle 2 Dp + Cn + Rp = Ap (Moral Action)
Principle 3 Dn + Cp + Rp = Ap (Moral action)
Principle 4 Dp + Cp + Rn = An (Immoral action)
Principle 5 Dp + Cn + Rn = An (Immoral action)
Principle 6 Dn + Cn + Rn = An (Immoral action)
Principle 7 Dn + Cn + Rp = An (Immoral action)
Principle 8 Dn + Cp + Rn = An (Immoral action)
Except for schizophrenics, the action or behaviour of every normal human
being worthy of the ascription of moral responsibility naturally falls into any of
these eight categories. In the first category, there are three principles. Principle
1 states that when a person has positive desire together with positive conscious-
ness and positive rationale. The behaviour will result in moral action. Principle
2 states that positive desire together with negative consciousness and positive
rationale results in moral action according to the order of deductions. And
Principle 3 states that a negative desire together with positive consciousness
and positive rationale results in moral action. The rationale is positive and
there is at least an either of desire and consciousness that is positive. So, such
an actor we assume will act morally.
In the second category, there are five principles. Principle 4 states that a
positive desire together with negative consciousness and negative rationale re-
sults in immoral action. This is so because; once rationale is negative and either

Academia Letters preprint.

©2021 by the author – Open Access – Distributed under CC BY 4.0

3
of consciousness and desire is negative the action is self-evidentially immoral.
Principle 5 states that a negative desire together with negative consciousness and
negative rationale results in immoral action. In this case, both desire and con-
sciousness and rationale are negative. Principle 6 states that a negative desire
together with negative consciousness and positive rationale results in immoral
action. In this case, the rationale is positive but neither desire nor consciousness
is positive putting into consideration the explanation given in Principle 4 above.
Principle 7 states that a negative desire together with positive consciousness and
negative rationale results in immoral action. Once there are two negatives and
one of the negatives is the rationale, the action is immoral. Principle 8 submits
that a positive desire with positive consciousness and negative rationale results
in immoral action. This is so because; the rationale is negative though desire
and consciousness are positive according to the order of deductions.
Therefore, a careful study of SAHAA shows that naturally, 62.5% of most of
all human actions are not moral, and that, only 37.5% have the tendency to be
moral6. This is why globally there are many struggles to act morally or a dearth
of personal integrity. Members of society must be trained to act morally. The
training module will be towards nurturing positive desire, positive conscious and
positive rationale. Consequently, in any given culture and environment for an
action to be moral, such action must fall within Principle 1, 2 & 3 respectively.
Finally, there are no arithmetical ways desires, consciousness or rationale
can be measured to determine to be moral or not, just as it is that, there are no
ways the feeling of pains can be measured arithmetically. However, a clinician
could determine the intensity of pains by asking the patient to choose from a
scale of 1 to 8. Where 1 is least painful and 8 is severely painful. This same scale
can be adopted but in this case, the doctor watches the behaviour of the patient
to see how the patient demonstrates the positiveness or negativeness of desires,
consciousness and rationale against the scale of 3:8 and 5:86 respectively.
Conclusion
We call the attention of everyone to reason with us that there is a new
and better way of determining the morality of human action without dissimula-
tion. Just say 2+2 = 4 and you have determined what action is and should be
considered moral, and what action is not and should not be considered moral.
Therefore, apart from being able to be analyzed and described, human action

Academia Letters preprint.

©2021 by the author – Open Access – Distributed under CC BY 4.0

4
is predictable for anything that is calculable is predictable. Let every individ-
ual act according to moral desires, moral consciousness and moral rationale,
for it is then shall any act and his action would be considered moral without
controversy.

Academia Letters preprint.

©2021 by the author – Open Access – Distributed under CC BY 4.0

5
References

Academia Letters preprint.

©2021 by the author – Open Access – Distributed under CC BY 4.0