God is evil if He has miracles and does not use them.

It matters to you, not to anybody else - just like the kind of ice cream you eat doesn't matter to anybody else. Good to know, Charlie. How have I redefined stakeholders? What about in the case of drugs, where the "victims" don't always agree that they're victims?

How can you eliminate individual biases by emphasising individual opinions? Objective in the sense that a group of people is more likely to be "right" than an individual. Then society is "right". Then society is "right". Then society is "right". I suppose you could say that each society has its own "group bias" - but the word "bias" loses its meaning if you claim that everybody has the same bias. A group is by definition more objective than an individual.

What matters to everybody else is how everybody else treats other people. If your individual ideas are to treat people better than the average, that's nice. If your individual ideas are to treat people worse than the average, then society is going to have a problem with you. Otherwise, your individual ideas don't matter. So you never decide for somebody whether he's a victim or not?

But Charles Manson's bias is the problem, not the solution. That's why it's important to eliminate individual biases. Since you admit that you're not eliminating bias, your system fails drastically.

It has nothing to do with wanting to help people or not hurt them. Other people can want to help people and not hurt them without caring in the least about your ideas. Your ideas don't matter to anybody but you.

Been there, done that. The guy who thinks he's being victimized by the gas company is biased. You want to base your actions on his complaint - i.e. you want to back his refusal to pay his gas bill.

But his opinion of "good" or "bad" is completely empty if it has no effect on the outcome. So you agree that your system doesn't work in this scenario. How is that not a failure?

If other people can want to help people and not hurt them without using your system, what's the benefit of your system?

Huh? It doesn't work and you ask why I call it a failure? If you had a car that only ran on Tuesdays, would you call that a success? You can't call something a success by only looking at the successes. You're proposing a "better" method, so you'd have to show that your system has a better success-failure rate than the existing system. Nobody is suggesting sweeping him under the rug but your system seems to suggest giving inordinate weight to his (in this case) ridiculous complaint.

It isn't all about you. It doesn't matter what you individually do. That's what society does. But they don't necessarily do it, as you suggest, by picking a side. They don't just decide that slaves don't like being slaves so slavery must be absolutely bad.

Under your system, that one person would be the determining factor in the gas company's policy; essentially, people would pay what they chose to pay. That's why your system fails in the real world. It doesn't matter if the current system is a failure or not. If you want to propose a "better" system, you have to demonstrate that your system would work better. But being "helped" and being "hurt' are not absolutes. One man's help is another man's hurt - and you're proposing that we follow the whims of the people least likely to be objective about it. So when somebody complains that he's being victimized by the gas company or the Mafia, you don't plan to give any weight to his complaint at all? You can't resolve the issue without giving weight to the complaint but your system is based strictly on the complainant, isn't it?

But you're letting the wrong people decide, the people with the vested interest. And you're ignoring the fact that most issues have two or more vested interests that are at odds with each other. You're arbitrarily picking a side. You really have to make up your mind. Does society use your system or are you proposing a better system?

My mind is trying to make sense of what your mind is saying. Which is it? Are you describing the way society does it or are you proposing a better method?

Perhaps you should try to be clearer. Are you proposing that we should base our decisions on the complainant's complaint?