[ivan.moony]

Let's assume there is a group of living beings grown up isolated from any influences from outside cultures. Will the ethics notion in this group of beings be relative to each being, or will it be something absolute which applies to all of them equally?

[infurl]

ChatGPT says:

The question you're asking touches on a philosophical debate about the nature of ethics and morality, specifically the contrast between moral relativism and moral absolutism.

Moral relativism suggests that moral principles are subjective and can vary between different individuals, cultures, or societies. In the context of your scenario, if the group of beings grows up in isolation without external influences, their ethical notions might be shaped solely by their shared experiences and internal dynamics. In this case, one could argue that their ethics would be relative to their specific circumstances and not necessarily applicable universally.

On the other hand, moral absolutism posits that there are objective and universal moral principles that apply to all individuals, regardless of their cultural or personal context. If there are certain fundamental ethical principles that are inherent to the nature of conscious beings, then these beings, even in isolation, might develop a set of ethical guidelines that align with these universal principles.

It's important to note that in reality, ethical systems often incorporate elements of both relativism and absolutism. Cultural and societal norms can shape ethical perspectives, but there may also be underlying ethical principles that transcend cultural boundaries. Additionally, individuals within a society may have varying ethical beliefs, leading to a degree of relativism.

Ultimately, the outcome would depend on various factors, including the nature of the beings, the context of their isolation, and the fundamental principles that might shape their ethical framework. The question of whether ethics is relative or absolute is a complex and ongoing philosophical discussion with no universally agreed-upon answer.

[ivan.moony]

Well, that was a quick answer full of info...

By my opinion, like in many situations, there is no a black or white answer. Probably there are different personal preferences of each individual, but at the same time, there exists a global intersect of their preferences.

When the contradiction arises regarding their personal preferences, the conflict happens, which rises a new question: which side would be right and which would be wrong? Is there a way to know this answer?

There is an idea of majority opinion by which democratic societies are ruled, but somehow I don't like this kind of organization. It is error prone. Like ten kids can take all the candies from eleventh kid, leaving it with nothing, and all ten could agree with that, which is obviously not just.

On the other side, there is an idea of a single downvote rendering the plan unacceptable. I like this organization better, but the downside is that it leaves little or no room for anything to really happen.

Are there other sane kinds of decisions on which side is right?

[WriterOfMinds]

A completely relative ethics wouldn't be ethics at all; it would just be personal preference. The very idea of ethics is that there are some behavioral rules which people can violate, and that it is possible for different people to find enough common ground in their notion of those rules to discuss them. Of course not everyone agrees perfectly on how the rules should be applied in every situation. The fact remains that complete ethical relativism would be self-defeating.

Like ten kids can take all the candies from eleventh kid, leaving it with nothing, and all ten could agree with that, which is obviously not just.

The democratic system we have in the United States is specifically designed to counter this known problem. This is why we have the Bill of Rights to take certain choices which would be harmful to individuals or small groups entirely off the table. It's also why we have an election system and a legislature that are designed to promote compromise (and yield deadlock if the major factions are unwilling to compromise, which is kind of where we are right now).

[ivan.moony]

A compromise is a kind of getting all to agree to a compromised solution (100% voted up goal).

[HS]

I think it's relative to context, and for specific contexts it's absolute.

[frankinstien]

The democratic system we have in the United States is specifically designed to counter this known problem. This is why we have the Bill of Rights to take certain choices which would be harmful to individuals or small groups entirely off the table. It's also why we have an election system and a legislature that are designed to promote compromise (and yield deadlock if the major factions are unwilling to compromise, which is kind of where we are right now).

Ideally you're correct, while rights are supposed to provide protections, however, if they do get violated it doesn't mean they will be automatically enforced. This has happened through out the history of the US. It get's even worse when our notion of jurisdiction, local, state and federal can provide vacuums where laws can be put on ballots that aren't based on facts but paranoia or discrimination. To get rights enforced isn't necessarily guaranteed. The process could easy fail within the courts themselves and the costs to reach the supreme court isn't cheap! While the civil rights movement persuaded congress to pass laws there wasn't a means to defend the rights of colored people in the courts before that. Another example was the women's right to vote was won when the Suffrage movement aligned its self with the southern states where those women of the south mandated that the Suffrage movement disassociate themselves with black woman, and so they did. What most do not know is when women won the right to vote it only applied to white women.  We can today see why southern states wanted white women to earn the right to vote was to insure that blacks would always be a minority vote, given that black populations could rise but with white women having the right to vote and black women do not that would insure a 2 to 1 advantage for whites.

So, we do have rights in the US, but that is no guarantee that they will be enforced...

[MikeB]

"AI ethics" means political bias

[MagnusWootton]

I always thought simple morals were absolute,  because u can tell when its bullcrap.

But technically, now I'm thinking maybe there is no correct decision when the problem is actually insurmountably impossible to solve, which is what life is.

So thinking that, you cannot actually trust even a 100% correct artificial intelligence, because life contradicts itself like frekin mad.

for example the situation of two men having a fight, which man do you agree with out of the two, I'm either pleasing him or hurting the other, either way its bad,
and some simple solution isn't possible without further analysis, which tends to not even happen in alot of peoples decisions when this comes up.

[HS]

I always thought simple morals were absolute,  because u can tell when its bullcrap.

But technically, now I'm thinking maybe there is no correct decision when the problem is actually insurmountably impossible to solve, which is what life is.

So thinking that, you cannot actually trust even a 100% correct artificial intelligence, because life contradicts itself like frekin mad.

for example the situation of two men having a fight, which man do you agree with out of the two, I'm either pleasing him or hurting the other, either way its bad,
and some simple solution isn't possible without further analysis, which tends to not even happen in alot of peoples decisions when this comes up.

Huh, now I'm thinking I might actually prefer for an AI to work from a basis of uncertainty rather than a "complete" table of rules. Because that should get it to look at things in terms of interference reduction, which should solve problems instead of masking them. E.g. get those two men to stop interfering with each other in the least obtrusive way possible. I dunno, I could be wrong but it's an idea.

[MagnusWootton]

Contradictive evidence.   No solution.    If its impossible a quantum computer cant even solve it.

[MagnusWootton]

In the case of ethics, implanting them robocop directive style looks like the way to do it.  (so you literally tell it what evil things it does hehe - like saving butterflies and then keeping pests out of the garden.)
And when the inevitable contradiction happens in its model, itll resolve it the best it can.   and a quantum computer would be the best at it, given its huge super permutation power.

[MikeB]

Is "absolute" another way of saying "long term relative"?

Who determines what is long term relative? Can a person involved in AI ever be non-political? Does the person who programs bias, explain away irresponsibility (poor long-term planning) as a "whoops lol" repetitively?

[DaltonG]

"Let's assume there is a group of living beings grown up isolated from any influences from outside cultures. Will the ethics notion in this group of beings be relative to each being, or will it be something absolute which applies to all of them equally?"

As much as we may wish to have guidelines that control human/AI behavior, the reality is that there can be no hard and fast - etched in stone - guidelines for the establishment of Ethics. There's always that Exception to the Rule based on variations in context. The fact that Ethical Guidelines exist in various disciplines is nothing more than a delusional attempt by elitists to impose their preferences on the rest of the population. People conform to ethics when it is convenient and devoid of competing desires.

If you are looking for some way to offset bad behaviors in an AI, then look to altruism and empathy. Both are said to have a genetic foundation. Implement them along with the ability to internalize behavioral responses with juxtaposed on oneself and prediction of the future from similar experiences in the past.

Trying to implement morality and ethics is an exercise in futility (in my opinion). Just take an example like the movement to ban smoking and force the population to quit smoking. Next, what do we have, the legalization of marijuana to increase tax revenues. Ditto for gambling which was illegal every where in the USA, except Nevada, until the government implemented state lotteries to increase revenue.

Ethics is Absolute - until it gets in the way of Reality.

[MagnusWootton]

Maybe its actually not wrong to commit suicide,  cause just look how shit life is.   But people are going to want to put it away as much as possible as a bad thing.
What if the best thing for the planet is it to just self destruct,  what if its logically deducable...  im sure the next deer on its way into a lions stomach couldnt give a shit as its body is getting ripped apart.

But...  do you have to think more to it than that?  Like what if its ok for the deer to get its body ripped apart for some reason you havent thought of yet?

The problem isnt solvable,  no compute,  dont bother even thinking about it,  itll just fuck you up for life in your own apartment, just thinking about  "possibilities".

And if you get an a.i. to go about automating parts of society,  I cant think of a logical way to do it,   there must be more thought involved.

So making the a.i. super intelligent is one thing,   but getting it to behave in a rational way, takes something I dont have.