Tag: ethics

Ethics: The Chicken or The Egg

crimson

The chicken or the egg dilemma is the discussion regarding which came first. The suggestion is that the question cannot be answered. One comes from the other, and trying to find the source or origin fails. Chicken’s lay eggs. Eggs hatch into chickens. They both are the source of each other. It is a sort of paradox to ask the question.

I was thinking about ethics recently, especially as it relates to the programming of Artificial Intelligence or AI. Ethics, formally, tries to determine what one ought do. That is, within all of us, we find that we have our desires, our goals, our ambitions, the things we want to do. If left unchecked, with no reason to deviate, we might expect all of us to simply do what we feel like doing all the time.

However, if you have lived in this world for any amount of time, you likely have observed that there are times when people do not do what they want to do. Due often to some sort of restriction, rule, or law, people end up doing things they do not want to do, or are prevented from doing the things they want to do. This is often framed as people doing what they ought to do. That is, there are things we should do instead of doing the things we want to do. Ought is the word often used to talk about such things.

Ethics is the branch of philosophy concerned with “oughts.” Specifically, trying to figure out what the “oughts” are. There are a number of popular theories regarding how to determine “oughts.” For example, there is utilitarianism, which suggests that when chosing actions, one ought to perform the action whose consequences will result in greater happiness. Without delving into the hidden complexity in such a simple statement, the idea itself should be pretty clear; instead of simply doing what I want to do, I ought to instead do the thing that will make everyone (including myself) happier.

Deontology is another popular theory in ethics, often attributed to Immanuel Kant. In this understanding, what one ought to do is a function of what can be logically universalized. That is, if everyone could perform the action in question without generating some sort of logical contradiction, then the action is acceptable. A popular example is of lying; because if everyone lied, then no one would be able to communicate with any level of accuracy or reliability, and thus lying is a prohibited action. One ought not lie. Ever, according to Kant.

Aristotle wrote about a theory that is often referred to as virtue ethics, where one selects an ideal and tries to emulate it. If you have ever heard someone say “What would Jesus do?” this is a form of virtue ethics. Determine how the ideal would act, and then act in that way. The ideal is the prototype for how one ought to act.

There are many other theories, but these three are probably the most well known and popular. Put more simply, the theory suggests how to determine what the correct actions ought to be. If you are unsure, then use the theory to assist you in figuring it out. This is precisely how it is being applied to AI; program the AI with the theory so that the AI can act ethically.

But there has been something bothering me about all of this. And it relates back to the chicken or the egg. Kant tried to justify his deontology by suggesting that it is somehow an absolute and immutable law of the universe. That by creating an ethical theory based in strict logic, then there would be no way to dispute or argue against it. That everyone could then easily be bound by it. Unfortunately, if you do but a little research on the topic, you will find plenty of examples of weaknesses in this ethical theory. Situations, often hypothetical, that suggest perhaps this theory isn’t quite so indisputable.

As one example, in the case of how lying is strictly prohibited, one person asked the following: Suppose my friend or relative is being chased by an axe murderer. They come to my house and I obviously let them enter. They quickly hide in the basement. Moments later, there is a knock at my door; it is the axe murderer. I answer the door, and they ask me where my friend has gone to. The question, simply, is whether I ought to tell the murderer the truth about my friend’s whereabouts.

Kant suggested that I am bound to tell the truth, as lying is prohibited. And that if I chose to lie about my friend’s whereabouts, then anything that follows is in some manner my fault and responsibility. It is suggested that perhaps I lie and tell the murderer I do not know where my friend is, causing the murderer to go off in search of my friend. Unbeknownst to me, my friend actually left my house, escaping from a basement window. Moments later, the murderer finds my friend and kills them. Kant suggests that I am now at fault for my friend’s death, because I ought not to have lied.

On the flip side, if I tell the truth, the murderer (in this case) now wants to enter my home to kill my friend. I may, at this point, do my best to prevent the murderer’s entry, but then I may be putting myself in danger. They are an axe murderer after all, so perhaps now I will become the next victim. And of course, if I am killed, there is no longer anything to prevent the murderer from doing the same to my friend. Telling the truth, in this case, seems to cause even more problems than if I had lied.

This particular argument has many more twists and turns in its discussion, but I hope my point is clear. All these ethical theories, though sounding fairly straight forward initially, end up wrought with strange loop holes and weaknesses. None are perfect. And with that, there tends to be a variety of disagreement regarding which theory one ought to follow.

But, again, the chicken or the egg. Are the ethical theories there to help us figure out how to act? It seems not to be the case. After all, if I can find fault with the ethical theory, the very thing trying to instruct me in what I ought to do, how am I doing this? It seems like I already know what I ought to do, and the ethical theory is a model trying to explain how I know what I already know.

Perhaps it is the case that I am somehow intuitively moral to begin with. I already know right from wrong, for some reason. The ethical theory is not there to instruct me, but to try and explain that thing I already understand.

When faced with decisions of a moral nature, I already understand how I ought to act. I don’t have to think about it (most of the time). I know I ought to lie sometimes, like when I am concealing information about a surprise birthday party from my partner. But there are also times I ought not lie, like when asked what time a particular film will be playing in the theater tonight. Lying and truthtelling can be quite complicated, and to suggest that I always or never lie is not sufficient to cover all my circumstances. A theory like deontology is simply not going to cut it.

To be clear, the reason deontology is insufficient, in this case, is not because I need to use it to decide when to lie and when not to lie. It is insufficient because it cannot explain why I know when I ought to lie and when I ought not. My behavior is the prototype here, not the theory. The theory is, in this case, trying to explain my behavior.

In fact, this is how all these weaknesses and loop holes are discovered in all these ethical theories. Because (arguably) we all already know how we ought to act, even if we are unable to put into words why we know. Through our upbringing, from our parents and teachers and others, we have somehow been taught what is right and wrong already. In the same way we are able to identify a cat from a dog (if you are in a part of the world where there are plenty of cats and dogs). Through repetition. Through trial and error. Through experience.

However, there are still times when I am faced with choices where I am unable to intuit the right action. There are times when I may ponder and have to think about it, because I do not really know the thing I ought to do. Even, sometimes, my parents and teachers are at a similar loss. The trial and error just has not provided me enough to answer the question. How do I decide then?

Ironically, often, I end up back to referring to an ethical theory. This is why utilitarianism is particularly popular where I live. If I am unsure, I think about how I can act that will make those people around me happiest. Sometimes that might mean which way can I act that will get me into the least amount of trouble, but this is just a reverse formulation of the same utilitarian theory. Maximizing happiness is generally the same as minimizing suffering or misery. This is how many people around here vote for politicians.

And this all brings us back around to the original issue. The chicken or the egg. Which came first? Does the ethical theory tell me how to behave? Or do I already know and the ethical theory is simply trying to explain my behavior?

With humans, the answer to this question seems less important. Much of the time, I know right from wrong and will self legislate. I will act as I ought to act, because I know what is expected of me. And when the times come where I am unsure, I can refer to whichever appropriate ethical theory I like to provide guidance. Which means I am also free to select which ever ethical theory makes sense given my set of particular circumstances as well. Perhaps utilitarianism makes sense this time, but maybe virtue ethics might make more sense next time. As a human, I can work my way through all this. And when I do make mistakes, it will be the other humans who correct me, educate me, or perhaps even punish me, as makes sense.

But what about the AI? The reason one must program the AI with an ethical theory is because the AI is unable to intuit right from wrong. The AI does not understand what is “right” or what is “wrong” in the moral sense of right and wrong. It must be programmed in how to behave and how to make moral decisions. And as this is the case, it will fall victim to the same strange loop holes and weaknesses we humans are concerned about.

Mental Health

crimson

In my previous post, I spoke of what I called Meta Ethics. The idea that there is a system in our societies that is suggesting how we ought to think and feel. A system that shames and corrects us when we do not think or feel correctly. This system has a name: mental health.

Over the past few decades, there has been a growing concern for the mental health of people. It is often framed as being how our bodies and, in particular, our brains are somehow malfunctioning. These malfunctions cause within us incorrect thoughts and feelings. Clearly, these malfunctions need to be corrected so that those people can live better lives in our societies.

I am in no way suggesting that mental health is somehow fake or does not exist. Quite the opposite. I absolutely agree that mental health is a thing. Mental health is something I would even argue affects and applies to virtually all members of every society. What I am concerned about here is precisely what it is and what it means.

As I have already suggested, it is focused on incorrect thoughts and feelings. When a person is depressed, this is a problem because being depressed causes the person to be less efficient in fulfilling their duties as a citizen. Instead of contributing to society, helping to make society stronger and better, that individual becomes a drain on society. It becomes necessary for the rest of society to attend to or take care of the depressed individual. This requires great amounts of time and resources. Resources that might be better spent on other things, such as space exploration or finding a cure for death. I say these things in part humorously, but I am not actually joking. Simply look at the projects of Elon Musk or Bill Gates to confirm what I am saying.

So mental health is concerned with correcting these incorrect thoughts and feelings. Often times through the use of chemicals we call drugs. Sometimes through the use of counseling and therapy. Spending time and effort to alter an individuals thoughts and feelings until they are the thoughts and feelings that are considered to be the correct thoughts and feelings.

This is ethics. This is the Meta Ethics I have been talking about.

The first question that ought to be asked is why should certain thoughts or feelings be privileged over others? Why is being depressed considered so bad? I have already answered this question: it is taxing on society. It turns normally productive citizens into non productive ones. It becomes a drain on resources. But this is the same issue we observe with criminal behavior as well.

Those who act incorrectly are a problem for the very same reason. Stealing or destroying property taxes resources. Acting criminally interferes with the normal socialization of a community. Mental health is the same, though instead of being concerned with actions, it is concerned with thoughts and feelings.

My greatest worry about discussions of mental health is the idea that there is a proper or normal way of thinking or feeling. When my partner expresses concern because she feels sad or angry, this causes me great concern. Because she immediately follows with expressions of guilt and shame. She feels guilt and shame for having felt sad or angry. This should seem incredibly strange to everyone. This should seem like a malfunction.

Why should feeling certain emotions elicit further feelings of guilt or shame?

I admit that much of what I am saying is biased. Clearly, as I cannot think or feel the thoughts and feelings of others, I cannot say precisely the nature of their conditions. But I can think and feel my own thoughts and feelings. And I have experienced this situation. This is the heart of my last two posts. The contradiction and conflict.

I have struggled with the world telling me how I ought to think and feel, the world shaming me when I do not. I have been told I ought to go to therapy and take drugs to deal with these malfunctions of my brain and body. I have even been medicated in the past. I was given an anti psychotic drug to deal with my depression. One ought to ask why I would be prescribed an anti psychotic instead of an anti depressant?

I suspect some will immediately accuse me of mental health issues. It won’t be the first time. Recently, I posted a very serious philosophical inquiry to social media, asking how it is possible for people to want things they do not want. As it seems like a logical contradiction, I believed it would stimulate a worthwhile discussion regarding logic as well as delving into the philosophy of mind. That the ideas of Immanuel Kant could be raised and explored. But instead, my post was deleted on the grounds of mental health. My post was completely dismissed within an hour.

At least on my own personal blog, I cannot be silenced. At least here, my thoughts and ideas will not simply be dismissed. You, my dear reader, can always decide to click away to some other website. But the fact you are still reading instills me with hope. Hope that perhaps you can see what I am seeing.

The topic from my post is actually relevant here. To want things one does not want, or perhaps reworded, to not wants things that one wants. In the case of thoughts and feelings, I personally have frequently thought thoughts I did not want to think. And I certainly have had feelings I did not want to feel. I have often believed this situation is being confounded with mental health, but perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps this is directly the issue at hand.

If a person does not want to feel depressed and seeks out some sort of treatment to deal with those unwanted feelings, perhaps the availability of appropriate drugs or therapy could be considered a good thing. After all, it is my mind and my body; I ought to be allowed an appropriate level of autonomy and control over these aspects of myself. I ought to be permitted to medicate myself in order to correct my own situation.

However, the next question I would raise is why I want to not feel the things that I feel? Where are my thoughts and feelings coming from? I have already answered this question as well. In my previous posts, I suggested viewing myself from different perspectives. The Unconditioned is the aspect of relevance here.

My Unconditioned is concerned with how I interpret the world. I observe the world and I come to my own conclusions regarding how the world is. It is in this way that I think my thoughts and feelings are originating. I observe the world and I react to my observations. When I am cut off in traffic, I get angry. The anger is a response to the situation. I do not think being cut off is appropriate, and so I feel that somehow the other driver had done something improper. Anger is a response to my situation.

My Conditioned will likely suggest that I ought not be angry. It is not worth my time to waste my own precious resources and energy being angry at other drivers on the road as I make my way. And herein is the very situation I have been expressing concern over.

When I say that I feel as I feel or think as I think, what I am saying is that I ought to be allowed to respond and react to the world as I do. That I ought to be permitted to feel as I feel in response to my observations of the world. I ought to feel freely, in some sense. I ought to think freely as well.

When I believe that I ought not feel as I do, this is not me being authentic. This could be considered bad faith, to borrow from Jean-Paul Sartre. To pretend that I do not feel as I do would definitely be bad faith. It is tantamount to suggesting that how society tells me to feel is the correct way to feel. To suggest that how I actually feel is somehow incorrect.

Can I be incorrect in feeling as I feel? Can I feel incorrectly?

This is my concern with the idea of mental health. Mental health purports to suggest that there are correct ways of thinking and correct ways of feeling. That when I do not think correctly or feel correctly, I have done something wrong or that something is wrong with me. A malfunction. And as the word itself suggests, a malfunction ought to be corrected or fixed. Thus, mental health is in the business of altering the way I authentically think and feel, replacing it with some sort of ersatz thinking and feeling. Mental health is in the business of bad faith.

Consider the following. In our modern societies, we seem to be having the greatest surge in mental health problems in all human history. It could be argued that this is only true because we never knew what a mental health problem was until fairly recently, and have only had the tools to diagnose and treat such problems even more recently. But there is an alternative interpretation of this fact. It could also be possible that as human societies continue to progress, with newer technologies and medicine, that the disconnect between how we naturally feel and how we ought to feel is simply growing more vast.

Many of those in our world presently who are diagnosed with mental health issues may not be the ones having the problem. They may simply be expressing their accurate analysis of their very real observations of the world. That what society is telling us, regarding how we should think and feel, is so very different from how we actually think and feel. And that instead of pumping more and more people full of drugs to help them cope with an ever deteriorating world, it might be time to consider that the world itself needs to be addressed.

In all this, I will admit one rather large weakness in my argument. I am suggesting that the world is somehow broken or incorrect. But I do not want to suggest that the world as a whole is at fault here. I am concerned with the aspect of the world that has been artificially created by human interactions. There is certainly a part of the world that exists apart from humans, and I suspect that part may be just fine. Unfortunately, there is no way for me to know anything about such a world, as I am a human, and so all parts of the world I have access to are necessarily tainted by human interaction.

Thus, what I want to suggest here is this: instead of spending my time trying to alter the things I naturally think and feel, I might better spend my time trying to understand why I think and feel as I do. Humans evolved the abilities to think and feel, and those aspects of humans have allowed them to persevere through several millennia thus far. Perhaps thinking and feeling is helping us in some way. Why should I be spending my time fighting it?

Meta Ethics

crimson

After what I wrote in my last post, reflecting further on these ideas, I realized that perhaps this is all about ethics going off the rails. Ethics, as I understand it, is the codifying and practice of establishing what one ought do, as opposed to what one desires to do. Ethics is providing guidance in how one ought to live their life.

When I say “going off the rails” what I am suggesting is a case where ethics starts to go beyond what is reasonable. To expect people to act in certain ways, especially in light of the fact that humans exist in commmunities, seems reasonable to me. To help facilitate interactions and promote cooperation amongst members. But when ethics starts to suggest how individuals think and feel, I think it is overstepping.

By and large, individuals have control of their actions. They have control over their bodies. They can raise their arm or they can lower it. If they are told not to raise their arm, they can chose to obey. It is rare that they will be forced to raise their arm, or that it will be raised by another. The raising of arms is within the control of most individuals.

Thus, making rules around the raising of arms seems reasonable to me. Because such rules can then be followed by those who decide to do so. It is not like one will simply find their arm raising suddenly without their own knowledge. Perhaps occasionally with some people. But not most people, I think.

This is not so simple with one’s thoughts or one’s feelings. If I tell you to never think about bananas, not only are you likely to be challenged in following such a rule, but I suspect you will have immediately started thinking about bananas as I tell you the rule. You may end up breaking the rule upon simply hearing the rule. This is not helpful at all.

The things that go on within the mind are hard to understand. I cannot know your mind, only my own, and so this discussion will necessarily be a reflection of my own experiences.

My mind wanders. At times, I can be challenged to place within my mind the things I want to think about. More often, I find that the sorts of things that appear come from the most random of places. My mind is frequently affected by my circumstances. What I smell or hear may spark a though or an idea. I do not intentionally place that idea there, it simply seems to appear.

So my mind seems to be less within my control than my arm. There are some things I can chose to think about on command, like bananas. But there are lots of things I seem unable to recall on demand. Telling me I ought not think anything in particular seems quite unreasonable to me.

Discussion of feelings makes the situation even worse. Controlling my feelings seems even more challenging. Again, as I cannot feel what others feel, only my own feelings, I will again concede that this discussion is presented from my vantage point.

When I get angry, I do not chose to become angry. Like with thinking, it is generally based in circumstances. Someone cutting me off while driving, for example, might invoke in me anger. The anger manifests, but I do not place it there. The best I seem able to do is feed into that anger and make it grow. Or to chose not to feed the anger and allow it to slowly subside. In both cases, the anger is still there; I might suggest I have the power to manage it a little bit.

To tell me I ought not feel the things that I feel, or to control my feelings will be even more challenging than telling me what I ought to think. I will break the rules about my feelings frequently, even without realizing I have done so.

Therefore, for ethics to make suggestions regarding the things I think or feel seems quite unreasonable. It is a recipe for failure and worse. Because if ethics starts dictating these sorts of things, people will simply find themselves breaking rules constantly. And for those who are sincerely trying to follow the rules, guilt and shame will ensue.

Perhaps this is the whole point. Main stream religions seem obsessed with such things. The devout Catholic is no stranger to guilt; it has become a significant part of their everyday lives. Being asked to not commit sins that somehow end up as part of the tasks at their jobs or at home. They are being set up to fail.

The reason I bring this all up is that this may be the source of my own conflicts. It is not enough that society wants to tell me who and what I am. It seems to me society wants to tell me what I ought to think and feel as well. As my frequent example goes, I am supposed to like beer. When I express that I do not like beer, I am shamed. I am to be corrected.

I use these very tangable examples because I think it helps in understanding. However, the sorts of things I think and feel that I am regularly shamed for are generally not so tangable, and usually far more insidious. Even me saying this here and now may elicit negative responses from the readers who know me personally.

I have sometimes had thoughts of killing. I feel in my hands the desire to grip and rend flesh. These are dark thoughts. I have been told in the past that it is normal to have such feelings. But whenever I have revealed these sorts of feelings, people will often look at me differently. Once they know that I have these thoughts, they shy from me. Some friends I have had are no longer friends after a short time.

I have found, personally, that exposing my thoughts and feeling can often times have very negative consequences. This is a large reason I created this blog, and why I keep myself mostly anonymous. I know that others can find me if they try, but it would take work and effort. They would have to justify for themselves such effort before worrying about identifying me in real life.

But here is the kicker. While I may have such dark thoughts and feelings, I am well enough to not allow those thoughts and feelings to manifest in reality. While I may have thoughts of killing, I do not act upon them. When I think a bad thought, I do not immediately open my mouth to speak of it. Perhaps I did in my youth, but I was quickly corrected of that behavior.

My thoughts are my thoughts. I feel as I feel. If I allow society to dictate who and what I ought to be, then I find I am guilty of many, many offences. No matter how hard I try to be the good, law abiding citizen, I find that I am inferior to the task. I just cannot stop thinking and feeling these dark thoughts and feelings.

And so I have felt tremendous guilt and shame for most of my life. When my ex girlfriend called me a monster, I believed her. I believed myself the monster. I orchestrated the end of our relationship, because clearly she would be better off with someone else. Someone who is not a monster.

This is why the ideas of the Conditioned and the Unconditioned are so important to me. Because I can see that my guilt is unfounded. It has taken a very, very long time to realize that. I can forgive myself. I can accept myself. What’s more, there are others who are in a similar situation as I find myself, and I can help them too.

I think we are all slaves in this world. Perhaps not literally; after all, if I am a slave, I ought to be able to point to my master. But we are still slaves of a sort. We are forced to conform and obey, and we are not given much choice about it. We are made to think and feel things we may not think and feel.

I envy the person whose thoughts and feelings happen to conform to the desires of society. They must certainly be happy.