[ExI] Morality research

[Anders Sandberg]

BillK wrote:
> If ruthless regimes emphasise 'their' morality which destroys others,
> then I am not sure what sort of morality you might seek to enhance and
> how you would tell the difference.
>   

You probably shouldn't enhance a morality (a set of behaviors and 
explanations of the good), but rather the ability to be a moral 
decisionmaker. A deontology pill would be pretty bad if it didn't 
correspond to the true morality (if any), and we have plenty of ethical 
uncertainty. But being better able to understand other people, control 
one's impulses and predict the consequences of one's actions seem pretty 
good for everybody, no matter what ethical theory you subscribe to.


> Some might say that groups filled with psychopaths have brought the
> world economy to its knees, enriching themselves and destroying the
> lives of millions.

That is likely more because people like to blame individuals rather than 
systems. It is more fun shouting slogans against fat cat bankers than 
against principal agent failure, which IMHO is the real core cause of 
the revent crisis constellation. The deep problem is that the 
institutions that were supposed to monitor and control within and 
between institutions didn't do a very good job, and few cared or 
understood the issue. After the first financial crisis in 2007 this was 
pretty obvious, but institutional reform (by better oversight or just 
letting bad institutions go bancrupt) didn't happen for a long list of 
legal, economical and political reasons. So of course things repeated 
and got worse. But how many OWS people shout that the SEC should be 
given better tools for analysing principal agent problems, or even in 
favor of Basel III?

The density of psychopaths is probably fairly constant between different 
organisations or institutions offering wealth and power - they are 
attracted to it, and the ones that are not selected out will thrive, 
whether it is a government, a company or an aid organisation. The 
failures of institutions rarely have much to do with particular bad 
people and more with a lack of ability to filter out bad people.


> Cognitive enhancement is a tool that can be used for good or evil.  I
> don't know of any basis for claiming that more intelligent people are
> generally more moral. How do you ensure that enhanced intelligence is
> 'Friendly'?
>   

No guarantees. Unlike AI the risk of smarter people getting 
super-advantages given biomedical enhancement seem remote, so the need 
to ensure that the smartest are nicest is less pressing.

But as I said, there is some evidence that intelligence makes people 
better at cooperation. See for example http://mason.gmu.edu/~gjonesb/

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute 
Oxford Martin School 
Faculty of Philosophy 
Oxford University