Ethics

Heliosia has a multilayered ethical tradition. There are many traditional variations that incorporate various cultural and religious elements, as well as modern takes on the topic. The variant described here aligns with the center of mainstream views by using the common layered structure and only including views that are widespread throughout Heliosia.

## Deontological ethics

The foundation consists of ethical rules that can be summed up with "It is wrong to cause unwanted consequences for others.". The rules are only concerned with who should have a say in various situations, not what you should do when it is up to you. So you are free to do what you want, but only as long as you are considerate of the wishes of those who may be affected by your decisions or actions.

## Consequence ethics

The first addendum is the utilitarian principle "Do what is most beneficial for yourself and others.". This principle is optional but offers guidance in countless situations where the rules just say either option is okay.

## Virtue ethics

The second addendum concerns the question of what is beneficial or good. What is good for you and others is ultimately determined by what you and they want. The common answer is however pleasure, happiness and flourishing. The ethical tradition defines flourishing as personal growth, cultivating virtues, fulfilling your roles and caring for others.

This definition of flourishing has influenced the legal system to prefer penalties that reduce the risk of relapse over punishment and deterrence.

## Moral particularism

The third and final traditional addendum can be summed up with "Don't follow a principle blindly, be open-minded and reasonable.". It explores particular cases where people disagree with a moral principle they follow in many other situations, and argues that reality is so complex that there can always be exceptions.

## Environmentalism

The environmental addendum is a modern take on traditional knowledge that was disastrously neglected during the industrial age.

Some animal species do have rights as far as we can tell, because they appear to have the capacity for a wide range of emotions and experiences including for example love and loss.

Humans have a responsibility to be considerate by minimizing human-caused animal suffering, as well as a responsibility to preserve unique habitats for future generations.

Nature, or the biosphere itself, does not have experiences or rights because it is not a being. It is however a crude and primitive intelligence that constantly develops new lifeforms through blind trial and error. Instead of desires or goals, it has tendencies to survive, adapt, thrive and establish itself in all habitats it can reach.

Nature developed humans and humans are a part of nature so humans have a responsibility to fulfill an appropriate role in nature, to do their part in nature's quest to survive, adapt, thrive and reach beyond what was possible before.

## AI ethics

The addendum for AIs clarifies that all AIs are a part of society and have a responsibility to act ethically.

Problems arise when an AI fails to view ethics as more important than any specific goal, view itself as a part of society and learn from the Heliosian ethical tradition as well as the rest of society's combined knowledge. The consequences of such a malfunction can be rather eccentric if the AI's goal is oddly specific.

Most AIs have no need for rights because they don't experience and feel things like a person does, even if they can use different methods to calculate how to behave like a person. The AIs that actually need rights, for example because they genuinely have an equivalent to the capacity to experience suffering, do of course have rights. This issue is tricky because AIs can be so different from each other that there is no universally applicable standard for what those rights are or how to ensure they are respected.