Ethics - Revision history

Tom: /* Context */

2025-06-06T21:27:53Z

‎Context

Tom: /* References */

2025-06-06T19:49:47Z

‎References

Tom: /* Problems */

2025-06-06T19:48:23Z

‎Problems

Tom: /* Problems */

2025-06-06T19:46:22Z

‎Problems

Tom: /* Problems */

2024-08-03T13:35:45Z

‎Problems

Tom: /* Context */

2023-11-02T05:38:50Z

‎Context

Tom: /* References */

2023-10-25T21:33:03Z

‎References

Tom: /* References */

2023-10-15T23:19:16Z

‎References

Tom: /* Context */

2023-10-15T23:18:39Z

‎Context

Tom: /* Problems */

2023-10-15T17:31:23Z

‎Problems

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ==Context==
-Aristotle<ref name="aristotle">Aristotle ''Nichomachean Ethics''</ref> and most other commentators recognize that ethics must be ultimately focused on the end goal of providing some [[Common Good]]. The [[Utility Function]] has defined by John Stuart Mill<ref>Wikipedia ''Utilitarianism'' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism </ref> as providing the greatest good for the greatest number. In tribal society ethics only extends to the members in good standing of the tribe. Most people use a hybrid version which gives greatest weight to the good of the family and then ratchets down from there to the community, the local government, the national government and for people as a whole. Now with the Internet spanning all populations there is a confusion of where ethics should apply in the digital world. The unfortunate answer seems to be, nowhere. Until we get a redefinition of ethics that will apply to the digital world, it is not likely that our experience on the internet will improve above its current abysmal state.
+Aristotle<ref name="aristotle">Aristotle ''Nichomachean Ethics''</ref> and most other commentators recognize that ethics must be ultimately focused on the end goal of providing some [[Common Good]], like the [[Utility Function]] as defined by John Stuart Mill<ref>Wikipedia ''Utilitarianism'' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism </ref> as providing the greatest good for the greatest number. In tribal society ethics only extends to the members in good standing of the tribe. Most people use a hybrid version which gives greatest weight to the good of the family and then ratchets down from there to the community, the local government, the national government and for people as a whole. Now with the Internet spanning all populations there is a confusion of where ethics should apply in the digital world. The unfortunate answer seems to be, nowhere. Until we get a redefinition of ethics that will apply to the digital world, it is not likely that our experience on the internet will improve above its current abysmal state.
 Karl Popper created the Theory of [[Evolutionary Epistemology]] as a means to understand the constant churn of the ideas coming forth from all science, but most specifically from physics. The core idea was that “all theories are true only provisionally, regardless of the degree of empirical testing they have survived." Even Newtonian physics with its great success for centuries was found to be an approximation by Einstein's General Relative. Popper's evolutionary theory can be a foundation for ethics.<ref>Karl Popper, ''Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach'' (1972) Oxford UP</ref> Similarly to the gradual improvement in building foundations, this ethics foundation is not fixed for all time. Rather it is suggested to use the best foundation that we have today in the full knowledge that it will continue to adapt to become a better way to build a foundation in the future as human knowledge of the real world continues to evolve.

@@ Line 84: / Line 84: @@
 [[Category:Glossary]]
 [[Category: Ethics]]
 [[Category:Philosophy]]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 It appears that the rise of the right to privacy coincides with the collapse of ethics. Perhaps this is just a coincidence, a result of the dis-inter-mediation effect of the internet, but the possibility of a causal relationship does deserve to be explored.
-But what is [[Ethics]]? - The U.S. Bill of Rights, takes up less than seven hundred words but, in the centuries since it was ratified, courts have needed millions upon millions of words to explore and clarify its implications. Developing a robust ethics, in other words, is participatory and cultural; rules have to be worked out in the complex context of the human experience, with a lot of trial and error. Maybe we should have known that commonsense rules, whether coded into a robot's positronic brain or approximated by a large language model, wouldn’t instill machines with our every value.<ref>Cal Newport ''What Isaac Asimov Reveals About Living with A.I.'' New Yorker Magazine 2025-06-03 https://www.newyorker.com/culture/open-questions/what-isaac-asimov-reveals-about-living-with-ai?</ref>
+But what is [[Ethics]] now that we have AI? - The U.S. Bill of Rights, takes up less than seven hundred words but, in the centuries since it was ratified, courts have needed millions upon millions of words to explore and clarify its implications. Developing a robust ethics, in other words, is participatory and cultural; rules have to be worked out in the complex context of the human experience, with a lot of trial and error. Maybe we should have known that commonsense rules, whether coded into a robot's positronic brain or approximated by a large language model, wouldn’t instill machines with our every value.<ref>Cal Newport ''What Isaac Asimov Reveals About Living with A.I.'' New Yorker Magazine 2025-06-03 https://www.newyorker.com/culture/open-questions/what-isaac-asimov-reveals-about-living-with-ai?</ref>
 Civics classes were started to teach kids to be good citizens (see the wiki page [[Governance Framework]]).

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:46, 6 June 2025
Line 15:		Line 15:

	It appears that the rise of the right to privacy coincides with the collapse of ethics. Perhaps this is just a coincidence, a result of the dis-inter-mediation effect of the internet, but the possibility of a causal relationship does deserve to be explored.		It appears that the rise of the right to privacy coincides with the collapse of ethics. Perhaps this is just a coincidence, a result of the dis-inter-mediation effect of the internet, but the possibility of a causal relationship does deserve to be explored.
		+
		+	But what is [[Ethics]]? - The U.S. Bill of Rights, takes up less than seven hundred words but, in the centuries since it was ratified, courts have needed millions upon millions of words to explore and clarify its implications. Developing a robust ethics, in other words, is participatory and cultural; rules have to be worked out in the complex context of the human experience, with a lot of trial and error. Maybe we should have known that commonsense rules, whether coded into a robot's positronic brain or approximated by a large language model, wouldn’t instill machines with our every value.<ref>Cal Newport ''What Isaac Asimov Reveals About Living with A.I.'' New Yorker Magazine 2025-06-03 https://www.newyorker.com/culture/open-questions/what-isaac-asimov-reveals-about-living-with-ai?</ref>

	Civics classes were started to teach kids to be good citizens (see the wiki page [[Governance Framework]]).		Civics classes were started to teach kids to be good citizens (see the wiki page [[Governance Framework]]).

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 * [[Conduct Risk]] is the impact of bad ethics, but it is often sold to management as a reduction in risk rather than as a moral imperative.
 * What philosophers like Hume assumed was that "a rational man proportions his beliefs to the evidence". But the psychologists tell us that is not so. The parts of our brain that create our beliefs are the one that process emotions and reward. <ref>Michael Shermer, ''The Believing Brain'' (2012) ISBN 978-1250008800</ref>
 ==Solutions==

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 Aristotle<ref name="aristotle">Aristotle ''Nichomachean Ethics''</ref> and most other commentators recognize that ethics must be ultimately focused on the end goal of providing some [[Common Good]]. The [[Utility Function]] has defined by John Stuart Mill<ref>Wikipedia ''Utilitarianism'' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism </ref> as providing the greatest good for the greatest number. In tribal society ethics only extends to the members in good standing of the tribe. Most people use a hybrid version which gives greatest weight to the good of the family and then ratchets down from there to the community, the local government, the national government and for people as a whole. Now with the Internet spanning all populations there is a confusion of where ethics should apply in the digital world. The unfortunate answer seems to be, nowhere. Until we get a redefinition of ethics that will apply to the digital world, it is not likely that our experience on the internet will improve above its current abysmal state.
-Karl Popper created the Theory of [[Evolutionary Epistemology]] as a means to understand the constant churn of the ideas coming forth from all science, but most specifically from physics. The core idea was that “all theories are true only provisionally, regardless of the degree of empirical testing they have survived." Even Newtonian physics with its great success for centuries was found to be an approximation by Einstein's General Relative. This evolutionary theory can be a foundation for ethics.<ref>Karl Popper, ''Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach'' (1972) Oxford UP</ref> This foundation is not fixed for all time. Rather it is suggested as the best foundation that we have today in the full knowledge that it will continue to adapt to become a better way to build a foundation in the future as human knowledge of the real world continues to evolve.
+Karl Popper created the Theory of [[Evolutionary Epistemology]] as a means to understand the constant churn of the ideas coming forth from all science, but most specifically from physics. The core idea was that “all theories are true only provisionally, regardless of the degree of empirical testing they have survived." Even Newtonian physics with its great success for centuries was found to be an approximation by Einstein's General Relative. Popper's evolutionary theory can be a foundation for ethics.<ref>Karl Popper, ''Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach'' (1972) Oxford UP</ref> Similarly to the gradual improvement in building foundations, this ethics foundation is not fixed for all time. Rather it is suggested to use the best foundation that we have today in the full knowledge that it will continue to adapt to become a better way to build a foundation in the future as human knowledge of the real world continues to evolve.
 Still there is a level of support for the [[Common Good]] even above that of good ethics. It is called by many names in tribal societies people's behavior was moderated by honor and shame. It worked well enough, even though it is likely that some bullies survived by intimidation. Today we call actions directed to a higher purpose the moral choice. As is described on the page [[Common Good]] morally good decisions have been driven out of enterprises, both private and public. Now the best we have is the imposition of [[Conduct Risk]] on enterprises that do not live up to expectations.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 25 October 2023
Line 76:		Line 76:

	[[Category:Glossary]]		[[Category:Glossary]]
		+	[[Category: Ethics]]
	[[Category:Philosophy]]		[[Category:Philosophy]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:19, 15 October 2023
Line 76:		Line 76:

	[[Category:Glossary]]		[[Category:Glossary]]
		+	[[Category:Philosophy]]