Because ethics is essentially simplified applied modeling of other beings.
This seems like a very non-standard notion of what constitutes ethics. Can you expand on this captures the usual intuitions about what the concerns of ethics are?
This seems like a very non-standard notion of what constitutes ethics. Can you expand on this captures the usual intuitions about what the concerns of ethics are?
The concerns of ethics for a given agent is to facilitate one to interact with others effectively, no?
Not at all. If I do something that doesn’t accomplish my goals that’s generally labeled as something like “stupid.” If I decide that I want to kill lots of people, the problem with that is ethical even if my goals are fulfilled by it. Most intuitions don’t see these as the same thing.
How does this contradicts my notion of ethics? You will surely use what you know about the ethical properties of manslaughter to reach the goal and save yourself from the troubles, like manipulating the public opinion in your favor via, for instance, imitation the target people attacking you. Or even consider if the goal is worthy at all.
Please explain how say a trolley problem fits into your framework.
The correct choice is to check out who do you want to be killed and saved more, and what are, for instance, the social consequences of your actions. I don’t understand your question, it seems.
Suppose you don’t have any time to figure out which people would be better. And suppose no one else will know that you were able to pull a switch.
Then my current algorythms will do the habitual stuff I’m used to do in similar situations or randomly explore the possible outcomes (as in “play”), like in every other severely constrained situation.
Honestly, it seems like your notion of ethics is borderline psychopathic.
This seems like a very non-standard notion of what constitutes ethics. Can you expand on this captures the usual intuitions about what the concerns of ethics are?
The concerns of ethics for a given agent is to facilitate one to interact with others effectively, no?
Not at all. If I do something that doesn’t accomplish my goals that’s generally labeled as something like “stupid.” If I decide that I want to kill lots of people, the problem with that is ethical even if my goals are fulfilled by it. Most intuitions don’t see these as the same thing.
How does this contradicts my notion of ethics? You will surely use what you know about the ethical properties of manslaughter to reach the goal and save yourself from the troubles, like manipulating the public opinion in your favor via, for instance, imitation the target people attacking you. Or even consider if the goal is worthy at all.
Please explain how say a trolley problem fits into your framework.
The correct choice is to check out who do you want to be killed and saved more, and what are, for instance, the social consequences of your actions. I don’t understand your question, it seems.
Suppose you don’t have any time to figure out which people would be better. And suppose no one else will know that you were able to pull a switch.
Honestly, it seems like your notion of ethics is borderline psychopathic.
Then my current algorythms will do the habitual stuff I’m used to do in similar situations or randomly explore the possible outcomes (as in “play”), like in every other severely constrained situation.
What does this mean?