philosophy historically did not have the right tools to solve the problems. Theoretical computer science, and AI theory in particular, is a revolutionary method to reframe philosophical problems in a way that finally makes them tractable.
Theoretical computer science can tell you are not implementing some kind of perfect algorithm, because they tend not to be computable. It can’t tell you what you should be implementing instead.
Naturalised ethics has been around for ages. It tends to tell you that de facto human ethics is an evolutionary kludge, not something mathematically clean.
About “metaethics” vs “decision theory”, that strikes me as a wrong way of decomposing the problem. We need to create a theory of agents. Such a theory naturally speaks both about values and decision making, and it’s not really possible to cleanly separate the two. It’s not very meaningful to talk about “values” without looking at what function the values do inside the mind of an agent.
Even if you need to at least address values and decision theory , it doesn’t follow that that’s all you need. Something can be a truth without being the whole truth.
If you only look within the minds of agents, you are missing interactions between agents. Looking inwards excludes loom my outwards.
Just as you can’t understand money by microscopically examining coins and banknotes, you can’t understand ethics just by honing in on internal psychological processes.
If you only look within the minds of agents, and only consider values and decision theory, you are likely to end up with something like ethical egoism … not because it is true, but you haven’t even considered alternatives.
Humans already follow their actual Values, and will always do because their Values are the reason they do anything at all.
But I don’t see how that says anything about ethics. Merely wanting to do something doesn’t make it ethical; and being ethical need not make something intrinsically motivating. Extrinsic motivation, rewards and punishments ,are ubiquitous .. unless you’re on a desert island. So it’s not a case of everyone always following their intrinsic motivations, and if it were, that’s still on the “is” side of the is-ought divide.
It’s not very meaningful to talk about “decisions” without looking at the purpose of decisions.
It’s not very meaningful to talk about ethics without looking at the purpose of ethics. Is ethics really just values, and nothing else? Is it really just decision making , like any other kind? Does it actually have no distinguishing characteristics?
First, “ethics” is a confusing term because, on my view, the colloquial meaning of “ethics” is inescapably intertwined with how human societies negotiate of over norms. On the other hand, I want to talk purely about individual preferences, since I view it as more fundamental
Fundamental to what? Ethics? Even if ethical behaviour is made of individual decisions, that doesn’t mean it reduces it to individual decisions, made atomistically , without regard to social mores or other people’s concerns.
The three word theory is that “Ethics is Values” That leaves a number of unanswered questions, such as: why it’s all about me;? are all values relevant? do I have the right to put someone in jail merely for going against my values?
It’s prima facie unlikely that such a simple theory solves all the age old problems (at least it would requires the supplementary assumption that values are hard to understand in themselves, in order to explain the persistence of ethical and metaethical puzzles) And it is easy to see the flaws.
The one thing that the three word theory is supremely good at it is explaining, is motivation. Your values are what motivate you, so if your values are also your morals you can’t fail to be motivated.by morality.
Is it all about me? Rationalists typically argue the case for for the three word theory by asking the rhetorical question whether you would support an ethical system that had nothing to do with your wishes. That’s a none/some/all confusion. I want ethics to have something to do with me, but that does not make it all about me, or mean all values are equally ethical.
For one thing, people can have preferences that are intuitively immoral. If a psychopath wants to murder, that does not make murder moral.
For another, values can conflict. Not all values conflict. Where they do, the three words theory doesn’t tell you who wins or loses. If morality is (are) seven billion utility functions, then a legal system will be a poor match for it (them).
Not all decisions are individual. There’s a while set of questions about whether societal actions are justified, whether societies have rights over individuals, and so
For instance societies have systems of punishment and reward, which, hopefully, have an ethical basis. Putting people in jail is just wanton cruelty if they have done nothing wrong. But if ethics just “is” subjective value, and values vary, as they obviously do, who lands in jail.? It’s easy enough to say the murderer and the thief, and to justify that by saying that murder and theft are against people’s widely shared preferences...but remember that the three word theory is “flat”, and treats all values the same. Should the vanilla lover or the tutti frutti lover, the little endian or the big endian go to jail, if others don’t share their preferences? Voting allows you to decide, the issue, but it is not enough to justify it, because merely having a minority preference is not a crime.
on .. which aren’t answered by the simplistic there word theory.
One can go farther and argue that such societal issues are the essence of ethics. If we consider the case of someone who is alone on a desert island, they have no need, core common-sense morality, rules and against murder because there is no one to murder, and no need of rules against theft because there is no one to steal, and from and so on … in their situation ethics isn’t even definable.
Theoretical computer science can tell you are not implementing some kind of perfect algorithm, because they tend not to be computable. It can’t tell you what you should be implementing instead.
Naturalised ethics has been around for ages. It tends to tell you that de facto human ethics is an evolutionary kludge, not something mathematically clean.
The open question, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-question_argument the question of what is the true ethics would be, is still open. Examining the de facto operation of the brain isn’t going to tell answer it.
Even if you need to at least address values and decision theory , it doesn’t follow that that’s all you need. Something can be a truth without being the whole truth.
If you only look within the minds of agents, you are missing interactions between agents. Looking inwards excludes loom my outwards.
Just as you can’t understand money by microscopically examining coins and banknotes, you can’t understand ethics just by honing in on internal psychological processes.
If you only look within the minds of agents, and only consider values and decision theory, you are likely to end up with something like ethical egoism … not because it is true, but you haven’t even considered alternatives.
But I don’t see how that says anything about ethics. Merely wanting to do something doesn’t make it ethical; and being ethical need not make something intrinsically motivating. Extrinsic motivation, rewards and punishments ,are ubiquitous .. unless you’re on a desert island. So it’s not a case of everyone always following their intrinsic motivations, and if it were, that’s still on the “is” side of the is-ought divide.
It’s not very meaningful to talk about ethics without looking at the purpose of ethics. Is ethics really just values, and nothing else? Is it really just decision making , like any other kind? Does it actually have no distinguishing characteristics?
Fundamental to what? Ethics? Even if ethical behaviour is made of individual decisions, that doesn’t mean it reduces it to individual decisions, made atomistically , without regard to social mores or other people’s concerns.
The three word theory is that “Ethics is Values” That leaves a number of unanswered questions, such as: why it’s all about me;? are all values relevant? do I have the right to put someone in jail merely for going against my values?
It’s prima facie unlikely that such a simple theory solves all the age old problems (at least it would requires the supplementary assumption that values are hard to understand in themselves, in order to explain the persistence of ethical and metaethical puzzles) And it is easy to see the flaws.
The one thing that the three word theory is supremely good at it is explaining, is motivation. Your values are what motivate you, so if your values are also your morals you can’t fail to be motivated.by morality.
Is it all about me? Rationalists typically argue the case for for the three word theory by asking the rhetorical question whether you would support an ethical system that had nothing to do with your wishes. That’s a none/some/all confusion. I want ethics to have something to do with me, but that does not make it all about me, or mean all values are equally ethical.
For one thing, people can have preferences that are intuitively immoral. If a psychopath wants to murder, that does not make murder moral.
For another, values can conflict. Not all values conflict. Where they do, the three words theory doesn’t tell you who wins or loses. If morality is (are) seven billion utility functions, then a legal system will be a poor match for it (them).
Not all decisions are individual. There’s a while set of questions about whether societal actions are justified, whether societies have rights over individuals, and so
For instance societies have systems of punishment and reward, which, hopefully, have an ethical basis. Putting people in jail is just wanton cruelty if they have done nothing wrong. But if ethics just “is” subjective value, and values vary, as they obviously do, who lands in jail.? It’s easy enough to say the murderer and the thief, and to justify that by saying that murder and theft are against people’s widely shared preferences...but remember that the three word theory is “flat”, and treats all values the same. Should the vanilla lover or the tutti frutti lover, the little endian or the big endian go to jail, if others don’t share their preferences? Voting allows you to decide, the issue, but it is not enough to justify it, because merely having a minority preference is not a crime. on .. which aren’t answered by the simplistic there word theory.
One can go farther and argue that such societal issues are the essence of ethics. If we consider the case of someone who is alone on a desert island, they have no need, core common-sense morality, rules and against murder because there is no one to murder, and no need of rules against theft because there is no one to steal, and from and so on … in their situation ethics isn’t even definable.