Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GavJ]

There are plenty of ethics systems that are much more nuanced and that cannot be distilled into any simple rule of thumb.  They just tend to be less popular, presumably because people like to have simplistic rules of thumb!

For example, Rawls has one of my favorite (it's just so fun and kooky) ethical systems: Basically you imagine that you are a generic alien arriving at Earth, with no pre-existing allegiances to any group of humans. You are given the responsibility of restructuring Earth society however you see fit, with the caveat that once you're done, you will be mind-melded at RANDOM into the body of one of the humans in the society you just created.

The idea being that the alien will want to tend toward giving the largest group of people the highest standard of good life, to maximize his chances of being happy and well off when randomly placed.  But it's less absolutely constrained in untenable ways, like Kant is, for instance.  Because if society REALLY REALLY needs 5 miserable people in it somewhere to do some super critical jobs, then the alien probably won't hesitate to assign them to those jobs. It's very unlikely he'll end up one of them.  At the same time, if society REALLY REALLY benefits from concentrating wealth into a few people, then the alien will do so, but only if it is actually good for society, because it's very unlikely he'll be one of the lucky few, so he wouldn't do it out of greed.

Sort of like what you'd get if you took Kant and John Stuart Mill and locked them in a casino together until they agreed.  And very much not reducible into simplistic rules of thumb

[Neonivek]

Which of course the major flaw of such a system is that the Alien overall will reduce society into a series of benefits and losses, with no real long term goals, and where the ultimate goal will be to take as few risks as possible.

In other words it creates an extremely short sighted system (afterall the alien only needs to live ONE generation. Why not structure the society for complete and utter ruination?).

At least if you put any thought into it.

It becomes harder in general to work with statements like "More people should include diversity" (as opposed to "all people should include diversity"), which is difficult to quantify in the first place.

The issue isn't so much in how true it is... but to what extent you are willing to go to ensure that... as well as what form it should take. "More people should include diversity" is pretty much a unarguable statement for the most part and if used as the basis for an argument should be rightfully met with "yeah, but so what?" It lacks any dimensions for discussion. Similar statements would be: Less people should be poor, More people should be healthy, Movies should be more intelligent.

One of the most complicated parts about diversity, for example, is how much to play up or down play stereotypes and roles.

The first response a lot of people make is that there should be no stereotypes, but then what happens is it created an unrealistically clean, banal, or unrealistic image of whatever it is, and often thus creating a counter-stereotype in the process.

Then there is the question on what are the stereotypes? What is really playing into them? how true are they? and how do you play into one without being offensive?

Thus you can have two entirely different groups both wanting diversity in media... But who have two entirely different ideas about what it is. You can have something that is considered incredibly discriminatory by one group, but considered almost a champion of diversity to another.

One good counterargument for the "If people were forced to include certain groups, they would likely be given offensive stereotypes" could be that medium awareness could increase the amount they are used correctly, for example.

Ethics really just boil down trying to marry morality with getting things done. Would a lawyer refusing to defend his client because discovered he was actually guilty be the moral thing to do? Arguably. Would it be the ethical thing to do? Well no because that just destroys the very foundation of how the system works.

I see proper ethics as a sort of long term morality sort of deal. What is better for everyone overall even if the moment to moment morality of the situation is compromised... but without ignoring the moral question. It is also "morality on mass" as well as "realistic morality".

It is why often making people include more diversity into videogames becomes a ethical question. Since it isn't about the moment to moment morality (though a case could be made), but rather the implications of forcing people to include state mandatory elements in their products. The reason why "Magical Capitalism" is often defended even to lunacy, is because the alternative is trusting the government to make these decisions for us.

There are other solutions mind you... you could
1) Commission diverse works
2) Create subsidies for diverse works that are given the A-OK by some sort of council
3) A Stamp that indicates that this videogame includes a diverse cast and that people should pay extra attention to it.
4) Create a stamp for games that don't have a diverse cast to say you should scorn it
5) Limit the ability for companies to advertise their non-diverse games
6) Limit where games that do not pass the diversity test can be sold or in what quantity
7) Tax non-diverse games. Thus making them more expensive.
8 ) Make it illegal to import non-diverse games
9) Have creators of non-diverse games have their picture taken and have their names and addresses put on the internet
note: Not all these solutions are... desirable... but here they are. Also here is a fun game: Guess which ones have actually been done in real life.

[GavJ]

In other words it creates an extremely short sighted system (afterall the alien only needs to live ONE generation. Why not structure the society for complete and utter ruination?).

There is no alien. It's an abstract assistive metaphor to get you to think about things in a well balanced way. Don't overthink it.

If you insist: "the alien is reborn every generation newly at random. And is magically compelled not to commit suicide." Whatever. Not the point.

[Neonivek]

In other words it creates an extremely short sighted system (afterall the alien only needs to live ONE generation. Why not structure the society for complete and utter ruination?).

There is no alien. It's an abstract assistive metaphor to get you to think about things in a well balanced way. Don't overthink it.

If you insist: "the alien is reborn every generation newly at random. And is magically compelled not to commit suicide." Whatever. Not the point.

So thus your system breaks down under its own weight.

And not by stretching it until it is unrecognizable either... I did it through actually taking it and applying it.

Want me to break the "reborn every generation" rule too? It means the alien favors stagnation over progress... and that isn't even getting into the alien creating such a disadvantaged class of society that they will die quickly so he can gamble with the advantaged people.

[GavJ]

It's not "my" system. It is a roughly paraphrased summary of John Rawl's probably most well known moral theory, who was a leading moral and ethical faculty member mid century at Princeton's philosophy department. If you would like to read about all the little nuances that address further details, you can do so here:
http://www.amazon.com/A-Theory-Justice-John-Rawls/dp/0674000781

The more generic, usually more locally applied version of the basic concept has been around forever and was to some degree endorsed by all of the other philosophers mentioned earlier in this thread whom you apparently have no problem with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance_(philosophy)

But I'm sure the philosophy community would be thrilled to hear about how you "broke" it by taking a tangential metaphor way too literally and finding some tiny flaws as a result. I suggest you go publish your findings and become rich and famous ASAP before anybody steals your insights.

[Neonivek]

I think all the people in the "philosophy community" know this already.

In fact, they probably consider the very flaws I brought up to be an important part of it (mostly because... it happened before and is still happening).

It is likely even written into that book.

Assuming it is a system of ethics and not just a exercise (which it honestly sounds like).

[GavJ]

It's not a flaw in the theory. It's a flaw in your weird hyper-literal version of it you insist on interpreting it as even though I'm telling you point blank it's not remotely intended to be that.
And actually, in addition to being an unsound argument, I'm not at all convinced that WITHIN the context of overly-literal intepretation, that they are even valid flaws, either.

Only one generation -- Has no reason to result in any more short-sightedness than any other moral system, all of which also rely on human beings that only live for one generation. A system not achieving a level of perfection equal to omniscient oversight does not somehow mean that it is a bad idea, if it is still superior to the alternatives.

Multiple reincarnation -- I see no reason why this would encourage "stagnation" at all. By encouraging progress, the alien would get progressively better and better lives as he moved through time. Which would be more desirable to him than to sit around living the same type of life over and over with a fixed cap on quality. He would be quite motivated to encourage a progressive situation.


edit:

It is likely even written into that book.

Wow.

I think that pretty much sums it up much more succinctly, right there.

[Neonivek]

A system not granting omniscience does not somehow mean that it is a bad idea

Never said that. I said simply speaking the best possible system for the alien in a single generation would be to.. Only care about that generation.

A very common attitude. So it isn't something that is far beyond the realm of earth logic... It is something that happens RIGHT NOW!

I see no reason why this would encourage "stagnation" at all. By encouraging progress, the alien would get progressively better and better lives as he moved through time

The alien has no control after it starts and can more ensure stagnation then it could ensure progress.

it is more advantageous for the alien to chose the safe decision.

This is also a common attitude. So it is something that actually happens... Albeit with more societies of antiquity.

And sure, stagnation won't last forever... but neither will progress. The alien could guarantee more mildly happy time of stagnation, then the alien could with progress.

---

And this isn't even getting into other issues. For example if the alien basically sees no differences between person to person (after all the alien is perfectly neutral). Then it means it is all for enriching the majority over the minority

There is nothing to prevent this from being an acceptable path. Sure sucks for the minority but, what are the chances? Heck the minorities don't have it too bad off, maybe the alien will get lucky and be in the majority.

These are reasons I think it is meant to be an exercise.

[GavJ]

It is something that happens RIGHT NOW!

Yes, amongst people who know their position in society, and therefore pursue not only short term goals, but SELFISH short term goals.

The veil of ignorance removes the selfish part from that equation and results in no obvious drawbacks by comparison. Thus it is an effective and value-adding moral system to consider what the result would be from a veil of ignorance when faced with any decision.

At the same time, it is designed to not gridlock itself out of relevance by insisting on usually impossible standards and ironclad black and white rules, like for instance Kantianism does. It also offers improvements over utilitarianism by avoiding the likelihood of massive rich/poor disparities and similar. Since a person near death and another one with a huge mansion is generally agreed not to be a superior society to one with two middle class people, even if the sum total of utility in the first case is marginally higher overall. (See also, the many varieties of trolley problems)

The alien has no control after it starts and can more ensure stagnation then it could ensure progress.

You have not established why this would be true, and I see no common sense reason why it would.

It is more advantageous for the alien to chose the safe decision.

You have not established why stagnation would be "safer."
You have also not established why "safety" is necessarily even the only or the primary goal in the first place.

[Arx]

Well, progress can burn out if whatever it's running on runs out, for instance if fossil fuels were to run out without us discovering any form of replacement. That's just an example, if it is for some reason very bad just let it be as an example.
Stagnation is safe because the alien wants the maximum possible chance of living well in every cycle, and the outcome of progress is unpredictable.
Safety for itself is the only possible goal for an alien with absolutely no investment in human culture.

[Neonivek]

Also veil of ignorance prevents selfishness of the individual. Not the idea of selfishness on mass.

[GavJ]

No no, you are only neutral/ignorant BEFORE the veil is lifted.

After the veil of ignorance is lifted, you have all of your biases and realities back again. The neutrality and ignorance are only for the decision making phase alone. And the decider KNOWS that's the case.

If it's easier to think about, forget the alien and just think about it as a literal, magical "veil of ignorance" that you can reach over and put on your head in order to make a moral decision from a position of ignorance about what role in society you play, then when you lift it off again, you continue with your regular scheduled programming, and you're aware that's going to happen while you have it on.

That is actually the more traditional historical conception anyway, prior to the 20th century.

Also veil of ignorance prevents selfishness of the individual. Not the idea of selfishness on mass.

By design, yes. It is supposed to encourage selfishness of the whole. You're trying to act in the most beneficial way for your society and species, that's the whole point...

[Neonivek]

By design, yes. It is supposed to encourage selfishness of the whole. You're trying to act in the most beneficial way for your society and species, that's the whole point...

Hey Argentina how did that work out for you?

[GavJ]

Argentina, last time I checked, was not the sole and exclusive home of humanity...

Sure you can twist and apply the veil of ignorance as narrowly as you like, but that's not what it is designed for. It's very essence is consideration of the broadest context possible. Use it unnaturally, and you void the warranty, so to speak.

(Note that Kant, sticking with our handful of main examples, is another moral theory that requires universal consideration to provide expected results. This is not a unique or even particularly uncommon feature)

[palsch]

Honestly, the best summation of Rawls I've seen is also the briefest;

A desirable society is one where you would be willing to enter it even not knowing your place in it.

The local extension of this is that Rawlian thinking encourages a focus on the bottom of society. If there are roles that you would never be willing to take then it basically demands that you improve them till they are above that threshold, regardless of the odds of actually ending up that way. A perfect Rawlian society might not maximise overall utility or even be set up optimally to improve future happiness or any other measure, but it is one where every position in society passes some minimum in such measures.

I actually think it is extremely future focused myself. People don't generally have much control over what position their descendants will have in society (unless they are already way up on top) and so an approach of trying to improve all positions as far as possible (with the already stated focus on removing absolutely undesirable positions) is the most sensible.