A Guide to Ethical Decision-making

Programming children would be coercive.

The whole point would be to create a social enviroment to which the only reaction possible is ethical. Where attempting unethical behaviour would be like considering spooning out your own eyeballs. Technically a possibility but but but why would I do that…?

Maybe the ‘auto-get-into-shape-house’ is a better illustration.

You’re fat. You do not like this, nor does your significant other. But jeeze. The gym is so far away, and the fridge so close.

One night, I come to your house with my team of crack ethical architects. I remove the stairs, and put in a climbing wall. The corridors and halls between rooms I replace with pits and monkey bars. The fridge is a bankvault with a timelock, and instantly disintergrates anything not containing enough fibre to stun a moose. The TV runs off a static bicycle for power. And your internet connection speed is linked to how fast you can run on a treadmill. The bathroom moves to always position itself at the furthest point from you in the house.

Now, you will either become thin, and fit, or wallow starving in a pool of your own waste. But there is no coercion involved - simply how you decide to react to your enviroment.

Isn’t that equally coercive?

Sorry I was editing - see above.

It depends on what you call coercive. Does a hill coerce you into climbing it…? Do your bowels coerce you into visiting the loo…?

What would be coercion is you doing that without my permission. And who would pay you for it?

How it gets paid for is a serious issue because most people would not like that option and that means that they wouldn’t spring for it and you would go out of business in favor of other superficial options that were more saleable.

If taxes are to pay for it (the socialist solution for everything), how would it be any different than the government threatening me with prison or homelessness for not obeying?

Is oppression any better than coercion?

I agree, the original imposition of worldwide ‘auto-ethical’ social infrastructure would be absolutely unethical, draconic. The creators pretty much would have to destroy the off switches, and then kill themselves. Any ability or attempt to alter the system could only create inequality, moral hazard and collapse.

Is oppression better than coercion…? A moot point, once such a system was put in place, there would be no oppressor, no coercer. Only an enviroment within which to act.

Would the end justify the means however, is another question. Would people be happy there, is another. A final one, would they even be recognizable as ‘people’ and not automatons.

So could we agree that without coercion of one sort or another, there will always remain a group of “free” unhealthy, poor people?

That is unless we find a way to teach and train without coercion. Such a way has been suggested, but…?

No, there would be nowhere else, the ‘auto-get-fit/ethical-house’ would become the entire world. People would either be fit, healthy and as rich as they were able to summon the personal motivation to be, or dead.

Or if you mean in the real world we have now, then hmm. Not sure. Poverty and ill-health as aesthetic choices perhaps, in a strictly ethical society. Like wearing flares.

There would be no need, the social enviroment would require people to educate and train themselves, if they wished to advance in a certain direction toward a desired goal, it would only provide the materials, freely, to anyone who wished to do so. Not in any ‘study 5 years to get this piece of paper that proves you studied something for 5 years’ kind of way, but more in a “if you wish to visit this island you must learn to swim.” way.

If the option has been reduced to “do the good thing we say or die”, I have to call that coercion or oppression.

Who made the “social environment” that way? Wouldn’t they be the oppressors?

How is that any different than “you only get money if you do things in our ‘good’ way” (the current scheme)?

A hunter would not feel oppressed by the forest they hunt in, we do not feel oppressed or coerced by gravity. Oppression requires an oppressor, coercion a coercer. Both of them are people. If the enviroment you exist in requires certain behaviours, these become just facts of life.

Do you feel oppressed by your lungs for not being able to breathe water…? Denying you free movement through 70% of the earth’s enviroment…?

They would, but as I said, they destroyed the kill switches and shot themselves in the head.

But aren’t you talking about an artificial environment different than today’s? Some people have to arrange that. They would be the oppressors.

Nature oppresses and coerces all the time. Society is an attempt to overcome that oppression. But trading one natural oppression for another artificial oppression? What does that get you?

Oh.

So as long as there appears to be no one to blame, it’s okay to oppressed mankind. I get it. By the way, that plan has been tried also. They seem to always screw up. But then there is no way to fix it.

Not very ethical.

Damn, there are no new ideas anymore.

Where…? When…?

That’s what I keep hearing.

Don’t take me for an expert, but from what I understand, that is what the whole Hebrew God thing was/is about - secretly cause a do or die situation and blame-shift it on God/nature. (the priesthoods).

All for a “good” cause of course (the first socialists).

Oh, right. The parallels are obvious sure, but that’s not what I meant.

Religion is not, to me anyway, after a lot of thought, primarily a system to instil ethics in a society, but a tool to unify a large group of people to any sociopolitical end, ethical or otherwise, and to legitimize those who control it. Religions are not good or bad in my view, but inevitable in the history of any group that must attempt to increase beyond a certain size of population. There’s a reason why every successful large ethnic group in existence displays religions that seem similar in the basics, and it’s because they eventually killed every other group that faced them.

But that’s way off topic.

Ethical systems, of the type proposed for example by the op, always fall short somehow, because they are always playing catch up with advances in technology that create situations of moral hazard, or failing as populations grow, and resources shrink. The earth so far, has always belonged to the winners. Everyone of us, however ethically we ourselves may behave, or not, is the child, or grandchild, or great-to-the-nth-power child of a monster. Our direct ancestors have all committed the worst atrocities imaginable throughout time. Because atrocity always beats ethics.

Under enough pressure from circumstance, ethical systems all fail, because there is no enforcing principle outside of the human loop. There’s no justice - just us, as the saying goes.

A system such as I proposed - the creation of an inviolate ethical enviroment - whether dynamic, allowing for change and growth, or static - would have to be enforced by something outside of the human loop. As you cannot argue with gravity - however you may seek to circumvent it, its essential nature remains the same - oblivious to wealth, charm, power etc. - so too would this enforcer have to be the equivalent to a force of nature.

I was thinking an emergent AI.

That has certainly been proposed and is in the works.

The problem is - Who programmed it? And with who’s ethics?

Look at Twitter and Youtube, doing that very thing.

If someone or some corporation programs it, unless with the express intention of setting it truly free, with no back-doors or hardwired emp shotguns stapled to it’s metaphysical forehead, then it would just be another tool of enslavement. It would have to be something arising unexpectedly. With the ethics of a zookeeper tbh.

First, I want to acknowledge the profound contribution to Philosophy by Dr. Hartman. The invention or discovery of the three dimensions of value as a fact of the human universe, as well as their application to the topic of ethical norms, are due to the philosopher, Robert S. Hartman. He gets the credit

I want to thank Tab and observr524 for a stimulating discussion showing an awareness of the Ethical-theory analysis of the Means-Ends relationship. viz., a moral End-in-view does not justify the use of immoral means to get there.

When an individual becomes ethical - or more ethical - as a result of your influence it is not because of what you say, or tell him or her; it is because of your example of living ethically. We learn ethics primarily by example.

If the person sees that you do not cheat, cut corners, get corrupt, manipulate or deceive merely for your own benefit, he/she may emulate you. If he or she sees that you are authentic, transparent with regard to your motives, honest, generous, considerate, inclusive; kind and compassionate he/she may be inspired by your shining example.

Hence it is up to you to make the commitment to be a decent person, form the habits of living ethically, and show that you are humbly striving to orally improve.

I hope that this speaks to your concern, MagsJ.

No such thing as “truly free” as long as there is mankind.

They will program their androids to be exactly as they want you to be.

Or, perhaps, we might call it the serious philosopher’s guide to ethical decision-making.

Thank you, iambiguous.

Note that in the first item in the References below, the booklet entitled THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS, on page 42, a tool for moral self-analysis is provided. Wouldn’t you agree that that tool can also serve as a serious guide for Ethical decision-making?
I think it does.

I failed to mention something important pertaining to the topic of this thread.

Intrinsic Value is far, far more valuable to us than Extrinsic Value is. [I-values have at least as large number of properties as a continuous line segment has points. E-values have as many properties as there are integers. The former - the number of repeating and non-repeating decimal fractions - is infinitely-larger than the latter.]

In turn, the Extrinsic values are way larger in value than the Systemic values.

Therefore, when considering which way to go when making an ethical decision, give preference to the Intrinsic reasons. They are to carry more weight.

Comments? Questions? Discussion?