From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: A "dialogue" on ethics
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:15:29 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA


     	IT'S SO SILLY TO SPEND ALL THIS TIME TALKING ABOUT ETHICS. THE 
        WHOLE CONCEPT IS A HUMAN INVENTION, ETHICS ARE COMPLETELY ARTIFICIAL.  
      
Perhaps, but the same is true of math and physics. Euclid invented geometry 
as a model that's useful when analyzing the relationships of points, lines, 
and planes. Einstein invented Special Relativity as a model that's useful 
when analyzing problems of mechanics. Similarly, the goal of an ethical 
system is to invent a model that provides guidelines useful in analyzing the 
choices we make in our lives. Such a system is no more and no less artifical 
than Euclid's geometry or Einstein's Special Relativity.

     STILL, SINCE THEY'RE A HUMAN INVENTION ETHICS MUST ULTIMATELY BE
     ARBITRARY. ANYBODY CAN PROPOSE WHATEVER SYSTEM THEY WANT, HOW CAN ANY
     ONE ETHICAL SYSTEM BE BETTER THAN ANOTHER? 

Again, theories in math and physics are inventions, yet we manage to choose 
between them. Often it takes time and experience to sort things out, but 
eventually it happens.  
 
     HOW DO THEY CHOOSE BETWEEN THESE THEORIES? 

I'm glad you asked. In my mind, 3 things stand out when evaluating a math or 
physics theory: 
 
1. Minimal, fundamental, reasonable axioms. Any theory relies on some number 
of axioms, which are basically unprovable assumptions. They should be:

  As few as possible - Euclid needed 5 axioms, which is better than 6 but  
  worse than 4. Having lots of axioms isn't fatal - the nature of the beast  
  may be that it's complex - but the goal is to find the minimal number  
  necessary to describe the phenomena of interest. 

  As fundamental as possible - Euclid could've said that "2 parallel lines 2  
  inches apart never meet". Such an axiom is valid, but is unnecessarily  
  restrictive. Just saying "2 parallel lines never meet" is much more  
  fundamental, and hence more robust. 

  Reasonable -  these axioms should "seem" right based on gut feel and  
  intuition. No proofs that a given axiom is wrong should be known. 

 
2. The theory should make testable predictions.   A theory that merely 
explains already observed pheonomena is typically not very interesting. 
Furthermore, by failing to go out on a limb and make testable predictions, 
there's no way to evaluate the validity of the theory. 

3. When tested, these predictions should prove to be correct. Often some 
anomalies are tolerated, particularly if the theory is generally successful. 
Too many failures, however, and the theory becomes untenable.
 
It's important to note, however, that a theory is never "proven" correct. Any 
given measurement has some uncertainty involved, we can only narrow the 
result down to a range of possible value. If the predicted result falls 
outside this range then we at least have an anomaly, if not an outright 
failure of the theory. If the predicted result falls within this range, then 
all we know is that, to the limits of the precision of the test, we were 
unable to disprove the theory. 


     HEY, MAYBE WE COULD USE THIS APPROACH TO EVALUATE ETHICAL SYSTEMS! 

Great idea. Now why didn't I think of that. In such an approach we might say:

1. Instead of axioms an ethical system postulates fundamental "values". These 
values should be:

  As few as needed to cover all the situations.
  As fundamental as possible.
  Reasonable.

     BUT HOW CAN WE TELL IF A VALUE IS REASONABLE? 

This can be tricky - logic doesn't help much here. Instead, we have to use 
our intuition and feelings. At an individual level if a value "feels" like it 
"has to be" right, then go with it. The stronger this gut feel, the more 
reasonable the value is likely to be. 

At a group level we'd look for a concensus among all the individuals 
involved. That is, that "most" (deliberately left undefined) of the people 
involved in the discussion find the value to be "reasonable". The stronger 
the concensus is, the more "reasonable" the value is assumed to be. 

     THIS SEEMS PRETTY FUZZY.
 
Perhaps, but the same words can be used to describe axioms used in math and 
physics, so ethics need be no more fuzzy than math and physics.

     HOW DOES AN ETHICAL SYSTEM MAKE "PREDICTIONS"? 

2. We can concoct various scenarios confronting an individual, then imagine 
various courses of action our hero could pursue in response. Using our 
postulated values we can then deduce an ethical "judgement" about each 
possible action. These judgements are analogous to predictions in physics. 

     WHAT IF MY VALUES LEAD TO MUTUALLY CONFLICTING JUDGEMENTS?
     FOR EXAMPLE, ONE VALUE MAY SAY IT'S WRONG TO LIE TO SOMEONE, YET 
     ANOTHER MAY SAY IT'S WRONG TO INTENTIONALLY HURT THEIR FEELINGS. 
     I CAN IMAGINE A NUMBER OF SCENARIOS IN WHICH THESE TWO VALUES WOULD 
     LEAD TO CONFLICTING JUDGEMENTS. 

Good point. This is one area where ethics deviates a bit from math and 
physics. In the latter our axioms should be mutually consistent, but this 
seems to be real hard to do in ethics. When we run into this problem, I can 
see two possible solutions:

A. Perhaps we can modify our values to get rid of the conflict.  In fact, the 
conflict may serve to point out a case where our values aren't as well 
formulated as they might be.

B. Otherwise, we might formulate rules for resolving these conflicts. These 
rules are really just more axioms, or values, but of a slightly different 
nature. For example, if values A and B conflict, we add a third value C 
saying that A takes precedence over B. 


     IN MATH AND PHYSICS THE PREDICTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO PHYSICAL
     EXPERIMENTS - HOW DO YOU VERIFY AN ETHICAL "JUDGEMENT"? 

3. We can't tell physically if a judgement rendered by our system is accurate 
or not, we can only gauge it mentally. That is, we ask ourselves:  "does this 
judgement sound reasonable?". 

     BUT THIS IS SCARCELY REPEATABLE. DIFFERENT PEOPLE WILL COME UP WITH 
     DIFFERENT RESULTS FOR THIS MENTAL TEST.

You're right, ... mostly. While it may be hard to find, you can often come up 
with a scenario for which the deduced judgement is "obviously" wrong. 
"Everyone" will come to the same conclusion. 
 
For example, someone might posit an ethical system from which we can deduce 
that killing other people to acquire their possessions is "OK". Almost all of 
us would recoil at this judgement and declare it "obviously" wrong, which 
would count as a blow against the proposed ethical system. Searching for 
these scenarios - where an "obviously" wrong conclusion can be reached -  
would be our primary testing methodology.

     BUT SOMETIMES THINGS THAT ARE "OBVIOUSLY" WRONG TURN OUT TO BE RIGHT.

True, the history of science is filled with this. This doesn't mean we can't 
use "obviousness" as a metric, it just suggests that we must be vigilant. 
That is, we must constantly question whether something is, indeed, "obvious". 

     WHAT ABOUT THE SCENARIOS THAT LEAD TO JUDGEMENTS THAT ARE CONTROVERSIAL?  
     THAT IS, IT'S NOT OBVIOUS IF THEY'RE RIGHT OR WRONG. 

These scenarios don't tell us very much. They're like a physical measurement 
with a wide error range that encompasses the predicted value - the error is 
so large that it doesn't really tell us if our physical prediction is 
confirmed or denied. Similarly for our ethical judgements.

     THEN WHAT DO WE DO IN THIS CASE?

Our best bet would be to reexamine the underlying values to see if we still 
agree with them, or if more need to be added. If we decide they're OK as 
originally stated, then we should probably accept the resultant judgements, 
even if they don't feel completely right. 

     WHAT ABOUT SCENARIOS THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY RIGHT? 

These help support the proposed ethical system somewhat. Unfortunately, since 
the number of scenarios that can be concocted is huge, having any one 
scenario pass our test only increases our confidence a tiny bit. 

     IN PHYSICS MOST PREDICTIONS CAN EVENTUALLY BE TESTED IN A REPEATABLE 
     MANNER. THE OPPOSITE SEEMS TO BE TRUE FOR ETHICS.

Agreed - in ethics only a few scenarios lead to "obvious" (a.k.a. 
"repeatable") judgements; most aren't very helpful. This is why our ethics 
feel like they're more arbitrary than the "laws" of physics - because the 
tests are less repeatable. Note, however, that this is a difference in 
degree, not substance.

     INTERESTING. I'LL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT SOME MORE, BUT IT SOUNDS 
     PROMISING. MAYBE I'LL TRY APPLYING IT TO SOME REAL LIVE ETHICAL
     SYSTEMS.

Have fun!

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.