Journal: Fact Should Never Be Confused With Statements of Value

November 27, 2012

in Journal Notes

Tuesday location:  Seven     ||      8:10 am – 8:25 pm

  • Production Management:  Looks like we’ll be able to catch up and meet our Q4 plans – even with the Sandy interruption.  It’s definitely all hands on frames but we’ll make it work.  Matt O. is managing it.  We have the best team.
  • Product Development:  MoPRO 2.0 in process.  I’m posting photos of some of the steps along the way in the framebuilding process.
  • Process improvement:  Spent a lot of the day working on some service issues – reviewing the past few months.  There must be a law of physics that states that there is an inverse relationship between the number of flaws and the magnitude of those flaws.  We’ve been very lean on the quantity – that’s good.  We’re pretty deep on the magnitude front – that’s not so good.  Entropy is Sisyphean.
  • Engineering:  I’m excited that we have three people at Seven Cycles right now that are learning SolidWorks.  That’s a record.

Post title:  “What we find unsettling here is the idea that these facts could be confused for moral justification.  Philosophers find this confusion particularly abhorrent and guard against it with the only weapon they have: a distinction.  The “fact-value distinction” holds that statements of fact should never be confused with statements of value.  More strongly put, this distinction means that statements of fact do not even imply statements of value.  “Can” does not imply “ought.”  To say that we can target individuals without incurring troop casualties does not imply that, we ought to.”  – The Moral Hazard of Drones

{ 0 comments… add one now }