Means, Ends, and Ethics for a Brave New World
By: Jordan Eshpeter
Tags: Philosophy, Tech Ethics, Technology, Facebook, Philosophy Of Technology

Photo by Mathew Schwartz on Unsplash

Let’s begin with the end in mind. To situate our investigation of ethics and its application to technology, we will focus on the individual ends we desire and the means by which we achieve them. That is, we will be the subjects of our own means-ends analysis; a fundamental philosophical concept and a design principle for artificially intelligent systems. We will stand on the shoulders of philosophy’s giants to define the concept, consider developments at Facebook, and finally, reflect on the role of ethics for our own projects. It’s the perfect place to start.

Means-Ends Analysis

The means-ends concept is so overused it’s worth defining to reclaim its utility. To get beyond everyday uses like ‘a means to an end’ or the Machiavellian ‘the ends justify the means,’ we will first turn to influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant. In his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, he defines means and ends like this:

“Now what serves the will as a subjective ground of its self-determination is an end; and this, if it is given by reason alone, must be equally valid for all rational beings. What, on the other hand, contains merely the ground of the possibility of an action whose effect is an end is called a means.” (Kant 78)

In other words, ends are our subjective goals and means are their causal actions. Aldous Huxley, the philosopher best known for the dystopian novel Brave New World, adds that the means qualify the ends: “The end cannot justify the means, for the simple and obvious reason that the means employed determine the nature of the ends produced” (Huxley 9). Rather than ‘the ends justify the means,’ our means reveal the nature — or values — of our ends. Rather than viewing actions as simply ‘a means to an end,’ we must actively imbue the values of our ends into the work of our means. And so we find that the values of our means and ends are mutually codependent; they rise and fall together.

Now, let’s investigate potential values for our ends. In Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill suggests that: “Questions about ends are, in other words, questions about what things are desirable.” And just what are desirable ends? As Huxley points out, these have been broadly agreed upon throughout the generations:

“About the ideal goal of human effort there exists in our civilization and, for nearly thirty centuries, there has existed a very general agreement. From Isaiah to Karl Marx the prophets have spoken with one voice. In the Golden Age to which they look forward there will be liberty, peace, justice and brotherly love. ‘Nation shall no more lift sword against nation’; ‘the free development of each will lead to the free development of all’; ‘the world shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea’.” (Huxley 1)

If these values are to be useful and truly inform our means, we — as means- and ends-makers — must be more precise. Freedom, peace, justice, love, happiness, and unity are noble outcomes. But for whom, specifically, do we desire them? Invoking the logic of Mill and Huxley, have we chosen means that are values-aligned with those ends? Does our means-ends system benefit specific individuals and, crucially, society at large? Answers to these questions are important because, as we will see, means-ends systems are not fixed or predictable.

Rather, our means — our companies, products, projects, resources, and actions — are highly adaptive; constantly optimizing for our ends. In his seminal book The Sciences of the Artificial, economist and artificial intelligence researcher Herbert A. Simon likens means-ends analysis to a goal-seeking system or an adaptive organism:

“The distinction between the world as sensed and the world as acted upon defines the basic condition for the survival of adaptive organisms. The organism must develop correlations between goals in the sensed world and actions in the world of process. When they are made conscious and verbalized, these correlations correspond to what we usually call means-ends analysis. Given a desired state of affairs and an existing state of affairs, the task of an adaptive organism is to find the difference between these two states and then to find the correlating process that will erase the difference.” (Simon 210)

If our means are dynamic, we must cultivate a heuristic to maintain their values-alignment with our ends. This heuristic will guide the adaptations of our means as the external environment changes and competing incentives are introduced. Aligning the values of our means and ends is the basic role of ethics. Now, cue the cautionary tale of Facebook and its looming privacy pivot.

Facebook’s Privacy Pivot

On March 6, Mark Zuckerberg announced that Facebook would shift its focus to the private web — “the digital equivalent of the living room” — from the public web — “the digital equivalent of a town square.” This is a strategic antidote to the growing public ‘techlash’ the company has been subject to. Facebook has been widely criticized for, among other things, the symbiotic relationship between disinformation and its bottom line. The new direction will focus on principles of Private Interactions, Encryption, Reducing Permanence, Safety, Interoperability, and Secure Data Storage. And if there is any doubt Zuckerberg is serious, he alludes to a new and complementary revenue model; suggesting that processing payments and financial transactions are on the roadmap. This vision for Facebook — more cynical and pragmatic — signals a significant change in the company’s means and, in some important aspects, its ends.

Now, compare this to the much more optimistic letter Mark Zuckerberg published in 2012 as the company filed its S-1 to IPO. In the letter, he introduces The Hacker Way and maxims like ‘Move Fast and Break Things.’ While he includes several foreboding references to money-making, he also outlines Facebook’s five core values: Focus on Impact, Move Fast, Be Bold, Be Open, and Build Social Value. Facebook’s founding means and ends are seemingly antithetical to those of the new privacy pivot.

Two weeks after the privacy pivot announcement, Facebook’s Chief Product Officer, Chris Cox, announced he is leaving the company. In the announcement, he highlights the gap between the two visions by both recalling the early days at Facebook with fondness and conceding that the company’s new vision requires “leaders who are excited to see the new direction through.” Facebook had abandoned its mission of “impact,” “openness,” and “social value” for the unlimited potential of its algorithmic advertising platform. Its revenue model, which was its means, became an end; and its community, which was an end, became its means. Still, Cox implores his peers to continue “bending” the means to “positive” and “good” ends. This type of “bending” requires an ethical heuristic that one cannot simply source from company slogans or feel-good mission statements.

It’s all too common, especially in modern capitalist societies, to prioritize ends that benefit oneself or one’s company. Life, as we have come to know it, is a competition for resources (or clicks). And so we should not be surprised when the means we employ natively optimize for our success. At scale, these means-ends systems give the appearance of terrific economic progress. However, we must also insist on social benefit in equal measure. Huxley puts it best:

“Such is the world in which we find ourselves. A world which, judged by the only acceptable criterion of progress, is manifestly in regression. Technological advance is rapid. But without progress in charity, technological advance is useless. Indeed, it is worse than useless. Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards.” (Huxley 8)

Here we begin our investigation of ethics. That we might learn from those who’ve reflected on the ‘good life,’ engage with today’s technological dilemmas, and pivot-proof our values. If unchecked, means — like technology and capital — too often become ends unto themselves. Similarly, ends — like human beings — too often become instrumental means. To this end, we ought to cultivate a regular practice of reflection — continually assessing our Why and recalibrating our What and How. So, let’s reflect. To which specific ends do you aspire? What forces endanger the values-alignment of your means? Answering these questions is the first step to progress from what is to what ought to be in this brave new world.

Huxley, Aldous. Ends and Means: An Enquiry into the Nature of Ideals and into the Methods Employed for their Realization. London: Chatto & Windus, 1966. [Originally published in 1937.]

Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, in Practical Philosophy, Mary J. Gregor (trans., ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. [Originally published in 1785.]

Simon, Herbert A.. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1996. [Originally published in 1969.]