I will use this area to discuss a number of ethics related topics.My main interest in ethics revolves around normative ethics or the idea of understanding how we should look at what actions are right and wrong. I am working on ideas related to coming up with a sort of utilitarian ethics that will be relevant in ALL situations. This theory does NOT aim to tell you what to do in any one circumstance but it will tell you what to aim for and why this is what we should be aiming for.
Outline of the bottom line ethics theory.
1. Different ways of looking at ethics are useful when asking different questions. Both in normative ethics and outside of normative ethics
2. Bottom line (in the end) the things we really care about are consequences.
3. Better and worse consequences exist and can be looked at in a rational way that is not simply relative to time and place.
Three of them most common (but not only) ways of looking at normative ethics include rule based, character (virtue) based or consequence (outcome) based.
Outside of normative ethics we have descriptive (just describing what people consider right or wrong) and applied (what we should do in a specific situation or type of situation). I will be writing about normative ethics for the most part. Often when people talk about ethics they may be referring to descriptive or applied so it is important to make this distinction.
Rule based examples: never lie, never steal, never own slaves, 10 commandments.
——-Character or virtue based examples: bravery, loyalty, honesty, restfulness, courage, forgiving, kind
Under character based theories we ask do people have or encourage these or other virtues or characteristics. This is how we judge if what they are doing is right or wrong. The right action is the one that the virtuous person would do in that specific situation.
Consequence based examples: Saving 5 lives is better than 1 life (all else equal) 3 happy people are better than 1 happy and 2 sad. The action that produces the best outcome or consequences is the right action.
Each of these three frameworks are useful for answering different questions or different levels of understanding in normative ethics. None of these can answer all questions about ethics but one of these is what we can ultimately ground ethics in.
2. Bottom line (in the end) what we really care about are consequences.
My argument here is that one of these three frameworks is what we actually care about and the others are ways we get to what we really care about. Ultimately what we care about are consequences. We want to be around people who follow certain rules because these rules, generally bring about better consequences. We actually care about having a society or being around others that have certain character traits because fostering these character traits tend to bring about better consequences. Ultimately we care about the consequences, but that does not mean that looking at questions of right and wrong from a consequences perspective is the best way to get to the better consequences. Trying to think or teach others to make all ethical choices by looking at consequences instead of from rules, virtues or other point of view is not the same as saying that consequences are not what ultimiley matter.
3. Better and worse consequences exist and can be looked at in a rational way that is not relative to the individual or society.
It is often asked “best consequence for who” or “who decides” ?
My claim here is that a best consequence exists but may not be 100% knowable. We can make better and worse guesses at what “best is” regardless of one person or groups opinion or perspective.
The actions to get to the best consequences are not 100% knowable but i believe the concept of what is the “best consequence” is knowable . The best consequence can be defined in a way that is always true, now and forever, in every circumstance. That said the best action at any one time will always be changing as the environment changes and our guess of what the best action to take will also change as we get new data.
This is why specific rules or character traits may be useful at one point and not another but the BEST consequence never changes.
the BEST consequence is the one that would be preferred when taking into account all preferences or “preferred states” as i often call it as the preferences can get confusing.
I will attempt to work this out in the weeks to come. I have a lot work on explaining this idea but i do believe it is an important one.
why i care about ethics and specifically this aspect.
First, I just think it is intrinsically interesting. I like to look at intuitions, heuristics or norms we have either biologically, culturally or both and think about why these ideas came to be. Some are useful, some are not, some where useful at one time and now are not as important but the ideas stuck with us. As the world changes faster our evolved ideas on the world will often be less useful because we evolved in a different situation. Overall I believe it is important to understand the bottom line or what we really care about when looking at something and ethics is no exception.
The second reason I became interested is because we will need to give general AI a goal that will work in all circumstances. If we give it the “wrong” goal it could be catastrophic. I am making no claims that “knowing” the right goal will make a difference as that will depend on how AI is developed and evolves. But for a better out come it could be useful to know and I would argue that if we do get to a place where computers keep improving their algorithms, increase data storage / access speed and get more data inputs such as sensors, Wikipedia or other data sources the world will be much different and our virtues and rules may not apply. But we will still want better consequences. what that consequence is need to be understood even if the actions to get these will be forever changing.