[ExI] [Ethics] Consequential, deontological, virtue-based, preference-based..., ...

[Jef Allbright]

I'm happy to see so much recent mention of bases of ethical
decision-making by thoughtful rationalist thinkers.  Just this last
week I've noticed Rafal, Max, Robin and Anders all resonating to the
theme.  I suspect that in part this is due to the secret network of
the self-declared "true" transhumanists, but that's a separate topic.

What is less promising, however, is the absence of synthesis of these
clanky old frameworks, each laboring under the assumption of an
Archimedian point from which ethical choice might be rationally
evaluated.  It's the free-will "paradox" in disguise, strengthened by
the moral righteousness of belief in the Truth, perceiving the only
alternative to be the likes of relativism, mysticism, post-modernism,
etc.

It's analogous to the controversy over many-worlds, with both sides
assuming it's a theory about the real world, rather than an extremely
sharp tool describing the relationship of the observer to the real
world.

Each of these metaethical theories, when extended, arrives at
inconsistency.  Each assumes a rational ideal, which, unrealistically,
entails a rational homunculus at the core.

Each disregards the systems-theoretic truth that any system will
exactly express its nature (its values, within the context of its
environment) while the perceived moral value of the action ranges from
"good" (within a specific context) to "right" (in principle) as a
function of the perceived quality (coherence over context) of the
model of reality it implements.

Of course, our language makes it harder to reason outside the everyday
context.  We assert something is "right" and some people take it to
mean correct within a given context, while others take it to mean
Truth, while yet others take it to imply a moral imperative.

In my (deeply considered, while orthogonal-to-humble) opinion, ethical
thought will step up a level when it recognizes that there is a very
real basis for moral decision-making, not denying the fallacy of
"ought from is" as seen from without, but exploiting it as necessarily
seen from within.

Sadly, our present world breeds very few Zen (and I don't mean Taoist)
scientists and engineers.

- Jef