3 ms·

What does it mean to 'source ethics'. I don't understand the phrase.

exdsq 6y ago
Say we have a system of implementing some ethical framework in an AI application, how do we actually decide on what those ethics are. The problem gets harder the more global the application is - ethical values held in one place won’t be the same as another.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  There is a common core of ethics , do unto others as you would be done by, and maybe a few more. These aren't universally accepted but they'll do. You pick your axioms and go from there. Like mathematics. What's the problem?
  - exdsq 6y ago
    Taking your example, that requires one to have already codified exactly what you yourself want and for that list of wants to be the same for everyone.
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      That is quite literally the opposite of what I said.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  That's probably a question for neuroscientists. All ethics ultimately stem from what people feel is or isn't right. All ethical considerations are processed in our brains. Since we all share a common brain architecture[0], there's some core of ethics that's encoded in our wetware. There are some basic ethical concepts on which human societies tend to universally agree on. The question is, how much of that comes from our wetware, and how much of it is a function of environmental conditions. It may be that we're only born with some most basic building blocks, and any universality we observe comes from humans living in roughly the same social structures, and dealing with roughly the same problems. -- [0] - Changing at evolutionary timescales, but essentially fixed wrt. lifetime of a human individual.
  - claudiawerner 6y ago
    >All ethics ultimately stem from what people feel is or isn't right. All ethical considerations are processed in our brains. This is debatable. Some metaethicists would argue that the ethical realm is much like the mathematical one, and less of a matter of the functioning of the human brain. Further, it seems to me there is a difference between saying "I don't like X" and saying "X is morally wrong" - if there is a difference between those two statements (as a moral cognitivist would claim), then deduction of morals from "what feels right" is suspect. The argument of cognitivism vs non-cognitivism is interesting[0]. >There are some basic ethical concepts on which human societies tend to universally agree on. The number and reach of those principles is very debatable. Arguments from moral disagreement cast doubt on the extent to which human societies share ethical standards. >humans living in roughly the same social structures I don't think that's true at all; post-globalization, there has been a convergence in what social structures look like around the world, but it's very clear that humans have had and in many cases still do have a variety of social structures, and with that, a variety of obligations. The moral obligation to do X in Japan, for instance, may be different by virtue of a different social structure. Using neuroscience to "deduce" ethics seems like the ultimate briding of the is-ought gap and I'm not aware of any professional philosopher or theory who has successfully argued that this is possible. The attempt in Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape has been shot down from practically every angle imaginable, and I think for good reason. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      I'll read up on the philosophy. But fundamentally, if not from the brain, then where else would morality originate from? God? But then if you look at every religion that claims it speaks for God, you'll find something in the proposed moral standards you'll disagree with on moral grounds. "Structure of the universe"? That's meaningless unless you point out what aspect of that structure determines morality, and I'm willing to bet it'll turn out that that aspect can be fully captured in the workings of the brain. What else is there to ground on? As far as I know, all moral questions under all moral philosophies, no matter how convoluted, are ultimately verified by testing the conclusions against examples simple enough that you can get a gut-feeling answer for them. Every criticism of a moral philosophy I've ever seen boils down to finding an example where applying some high-level rule leads to conclusions that cannot be reconciled with the gut.

Say we have a system of implementing some ethical framework in an AI application, how do we actually decide on what those ethics are. The problem gets harder the more global the application is - ethical values held in one place won’t be the same as another.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
There is a common core of ethics , do unto others as you would be done by, and maybe a few more. These aren't universally accepted but they'll do. You pick your axioms and go from there. Like mathematics. What's the problem?
- exdsq 6y ago
  Taking your example, that requires one to have already codified exactly what you yourself want and for that list of wants to be the same for everyone.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    That is quite literally the opposite of what I said.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
That's probably a question for neuroscientists. All ethics ultimately stem from what people feel is or isn't right. All ethical considerations are processed in our brains. Since we all share a common brain architecture[0], there's some core of ethics that's encoded in our wetware. There are some basic ethical concepts on which human societies tend to universally agree on. The question is, how much of that comes from our wetware, and how much of it is a function of environmental conditions. It may be that we're only born with some most basic building blocks, and any universality we observe comes from humans living in roughly the same social structures, and dealing with roughly the same problems. -- [0] - Changing at evolutionary timescales, but essentially fixed wrt. lifetime of a human individual.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  >All ethics ultimately stem from what people feel is or isn't right. All ethical considerations are processed in our brains. This is debatable. Some metaethicists would argue that the ethical realm is much like the mathematical one, and less of a matter of the functioning of the human brain. Further, it seems to me there is a difference between saying "I don't like X" and saying "X is morally wrong" - if there is a difference between those two statements (as a moral cognitivist would claim), then deduction of morals from "what feels right" is suspect. The argument of cognitivism vs non-cognitivism is interesting[0]. >There are some basic ethical concepts on which human societies tend to universally agree on. The number and reach of those principles is very debatable. Arguments from moral disagreement cast doubt on the extent to which human societies share ethical standards. >humans living in roughly the same social structures I don't think that's true at all; post-globalization, there has been a convergence in what social structures look like around the world, but it's very clear that humans have had and in many cases still do have a variety of social structures, and with that, a variety of obligations. The moral obligation to do X in Japan, for instance, may be different by virtue of a different social structure. Using neuroscience to "deduce" ethics seems like the ultimate briding of the is-ought gap and I'm not aware of any professional philosopher or theory who has successfully argued that this is possible. The attempt in Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape has been shot down from practically every angle imaginable, and I think for good reason. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    I'll read up on the philosophy. But fundamentally, if not from the brain, then where else would morality originate from? God? But then if you look at every religion that claims it speaks for God, you'll find something in the proposed moral standards you'll disagree with on moral grounds. "Structure of the universe"? That's meaningless unless you point out what aspect of that structure determines morality, and I'm willing to bet it'll turn out that that aspect can be fully captured in the workings of the brain. What else is there to ground on? As far as I know, all moral questions under all moral philosophies, no matter how convoluted, are ultimately verified by testing the conclusions against examples simple enough that you can get a gut-feeling answer for them. Every criticism of a moral philosophy I've ever seen boils down to finding an example where applying some high-level rule leads to conclusions that cannot be reconciled with the gut.