The Moral Wars

[PloverWing]

I agree that our actions have an objective ethical component. Our actions can advance or hinder the natural values of other people in an objectively apparent way. Is that what you mean?

We might need to discuss what "natural" means here, but, yes, this sounds close to what I'm saying.

 

[PloverWing]

All moral positions are relative to the circumstances. So it might be morally good for Alice to kill Bob. But wrong for Ted to kill Carol (points awarded for the references).

I agree that the circumstances matter a great deal. If Alice kills Bob in order to steal his wallet, that's different from Alice killing Bob in self-defense or on the battlefield. (It's possible that all three are still morally wrong, but they are three different situations and need to be considered separately.)

It's very hard to construct a rule-based system that accurately captures human morality. I remember attending a talk by an AI researcher some years ago in which the speaker talked about the difficulty of encoding morality into an algorithm that could be carried out by a computer.

Alas, I was still in elementary school when Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice were having their adventures.

 

[Bradskii]

It's very hard to construct a rule-based system that accurately captures human morality. I remember attending a talk by an AI researcher some years ago in which the speaker talked about the difficulty of encoding morality into an algorithm that could be carried out by a computer.

We will very soon indeed reach a point when someone will actually have to programe a solution to the trolley problem into your car's AI. Swerve and kill the driver or try to brake and kill the pedestrians?

Will a Catholic for example ask that her car should be set up to sacrifice herself rather than a random group? Does the hypothetical answer given to the original problem undergo a subtle realignment when it comes to how you want your Suzuki to operate?

Would you personally buy a car when the drivers safety was of secondary importance to others involved in an accident?

My wife and I just bought a new car. The first actual brand new car we've had. And I'm astonished at what it does by itself. It will verbally prompt you if you're in a school zone. It will admonish you if you're over the speed limit. It will keep a set speed up whatever the terrain and slow down if the car in front does and even stop by itself in an emergency. It'll turn on the windscreen wipers if it it rains and the lights on if it gets dark. And I just discovered how to work the smart lane technology this afternoon on a trip home. It steers the car! Whaaaat? I could have sat there and read the newspaper for a significant proportion of my journey.

The problem is...if it gets much smarter, could I convince myself that a couple extra beers would be fine seeing as I'm virtually a passenger? I'm sure some people are already doing that with existing technology.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Will a Catholic for example ask that her car should be set up to sacrifice herself rather than a random group? Does the hypothetical answer given to the original problem undergo a subtle realignment when it comes to how you want your Suzuki to operate?

It's an interesting hypothetical. And it may become real in the short-term. However, I think in the long term all vehicles will be AI. Given much faster reaction times, I'll bet no such decision would arise since I bet no such situation would arise. The short-term is a problem since NOT all cars will be AI and the AI needs to anticipate fallible, slow human decisions.

 

[Speedwell]

We will very soon indeed reach a point when someone will actually have to programe a solution to the trolley problem into your car's AI. S

Unlikely to occur as such with autonomous vehicles. The trolley problem assumes that the operator of the trolley has no effect on the actions of the potential targets, rather than acting in concert with them.

 

[zippy2006]

It's an interesting hypothetical. And it may become real in the short-term. However, I think in the long term all vehicles will be AI. Given much faster reaction times, I'll bet no such decision would arise since I bet no such situation would arise. The short-term is a problem since NOT all cars will be AI and the AI needs to anticipate fallible, slow human decisions.

His hypothetical is presupposing AI. You have to program the AI to make such decisions. AI isn't magic. It doesn't solve any moral problem in itself. Faster reaction times don't solve moral problems.

(Ideas surrounding AI constitute an enormous bulk of the superstition present in the scientific community)

 

[Tinker Grey]

His hypothetical is presupposing AI. You have to program the AI to make such decisions. AI isn't magic. It doesn't solve any moral problem in itself. Faster reaction times don't solve moral problems.

(Ideas surrounding AI constitute an enormous bulk of the superstition present in the scientific community)

Yes. I understand that. I am a software engineer. But if AI never enters a crosswalk without sensing pedestrians, if an AI never crosses center line, if an AI senses jaywalking pedestrians, and if every other vehicle on the road is coded to the same standards...etc., then the situation where a choice between saving the one or saving the many will never arise. (Never is a long time, but I'm expressing an ideal.) Too, if one vehicle does its best to save its passengers and the other vehicle does its best to save its passengers, it is likely they will make (can be programmed to) mutually beneficial decisions.

In other words, if you can code to detect a condition where such a decision is necessary, you can probably code to avoid it. As such, there is no moral decision to make.

The real risk is human drivers forcing AI into a bad state.

 

[PloverWing]

The AI researcher I spoke of was working on autonomous AI agents for a battlefield situation. It's been a few years ago, so I don't know the current state of his team's research (and it's probably classified). His ethical system assumed that war was morally acceptable in at least some situations, but that genocide of all humans in a region was morally unacceptable, and his team was trying to program a system to steer the course in between. You may kill the armed soldier who is attacking you. You may not kill the kindergartener who unfortunately lives in a war zone. You should also not shoot the department store mannequin. Etc.

 

[Bradskii]

The real risk is human drivers forcing AI into a bad state.

I'm assuming that you'd be able to turn it off and hoon about as the mood takes you. And if a kangaroo hops out in front of you when you're doing 80kph (and the limit is 100kph), does it swerve and hit a tree or hit the 'roo and bounce into oncoming traffic?

I don't think it's going to be as smart as we assume.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'm assuming that you'd be able to turn it off and hoon about as the mood takes you. And if a kangaroo hops out in front of you when you're doing 80kph (and the limit is 100kph), does it swerve and hit a tree or hit the 'roo and bounce into oncoming traffic?

I don't think it's going to be as smart as we assume.

And I don't think it will be as dumb as we assume. Nor the risks of a tough decision as high as we assume. At minimum, I think it'll do a heck of a lot better than human drivers.

 

[Bradskii]

At minimum, I think it'll do a heck of a lot better than human drivers.

Can't disagree with that.

 

[zippy2006]

In other words, if you can code to detect a condition where such a decision is necessary, you can probably code to avoid it. As such, there is no moral decision to make.

Humans can do that, too. It's called staying home.

It's just a fallacy of computer science to think that AI or technology can definitively solve moral problems. There will always be accidents; there will always be tough decisions. AI won't change that.

 

[GDL]

and if every other vehicle on the road is coded to the same standards.

A big "if." Was working in the industry in the 70's to early 80's. When does the unity in technology come, let alone unity in morality, and when do hardware malfunctions cease? Things still break. And, as has been pointed out, people still code & glitches still happen and hackers still hack and...

 

[now faith]

Sacred vs Secular – The Moral Wars

If we go back as little as 100 years, Christianity and secular Western opinion would have, more or less, publicly agreed on a set of moral values or rules.

What we have observed in America, is no different than the cultural breakdowns throughout History.
Destruction of a society begins with the breakdown of morality.
The Bible shows us this in the Old Testament, with Jew and Gentile alike..

A old Preacher once said about America ( If things do not get any better God will have to apologize to Sodom, and Gomorrah)

I do see the entire World having a moral breakdown in the past 50 years though not just America.
The Sexual aspect has been in cycles of history, the roaring 20s were a time of world wide open sexuality.


In my lifetime I’ve seen a gradual separation of sacred and secular opinion on a number of major issues usually - but not always - related to sexual behaviour. This moral rupture appears to be ongoing. In trying to list the various areas of sacred/secular conflict I ended up dividing the list into three groups:

Major Conflicts
Areas where Christian doctrine and the opinions of Christians more or less agree and are in opposition to a secular majority. These are the ongoing hard-fought battles where the split is basically along sacred/secular lines.

Lesser Conflicts
Areas where Christian opinion and doctrine is mixed. While many Christians accept the secular view there is still a significant and vocal Christian opposition based on doctrinal arguments. Outside of the US many of these would qualify as ‘Lost Causes’.

Lost Causes?
The true is/oughts. Concepts which may have Christian doctrinal disagreement but have essentially lost the battle. Quietly accepted by most Westernised Christians.

The list:

Major Conflicts
· Abortion
· Assisted dying
· Same sex marriage
· Gender transition – particularly in younger people

Lesser Conflicts
· Evolution
· Age of the Earth/Universe
· Biblical literalism e.g.

o Genesis
o Noah’s flood
o The Tower of Babel​

· Acceptance of non-stereotypical gender behaviour

Lost Causes?
· Sexual activity outside of marriage
· Acceptance of homosexuality
· Female equality
· Contraception

• Marriage like relationships" (aka 'shacking up')
• Children out of wedlock" (single or partnered)
• Divorce

Is this list a reasonably summary of sacred/secular battle lines? What have I missed?

I see the secular view as winning on all fronts. Am I wrong?

This thread is not about who ‘ought’ to win but who, in real terms, is winning the battle for public acceptance.

OB
Edit: Red text = later additions

What we have observed in America, is no different than the cultural breakdowns throughout History.
Destruction of a society begins with the breakdown of morality.
The Bible shows us this in the Old Testament, with Jew and Gentile alike..

A old Preacher once said about America ( If things do not get any better God will have to apologize to Sodom, and Gomorrah)

I do see the entire World having a moral breakdown in the past 50 years though not just America.
The Sexual aspect has been in cycles of history, the roaring 20s were a time of world wide open sexuality.

It is the time a society goes toward the occult, and murders their Children, that is a Canary in a coal mine for the fall of a civilization.
At this point People become reprobate in their lust for blood and power..
Genocide, war, and a disregard for all things of God is a form of mass hysteria, that has also repeated throughout history..
Today is one of those times in the history of the World, will it be the last?
I hope so.

 

[Occams Barber]

What we have observed in America, is no different than the cultural breakdowns throughout History.
Destruction of a society begins with the breakdown of morality.
The Bible shows us this in the Old Testament, with Jew and Gentile alike..

A old Preacher once said about America ( If things do not get any better God will have to apologize to Sodom, and Gomorrah)

I do see the entire World having a moral breakdown in the past 50 years though not just America.

If you look at the first sentence of the OP you'll see that this thread was never about America. Nor was it about the whole world. It was about Christianity and the secular Western World. You might 'see' the entire world having a moral breakdown but I bet you know next to nothing about what's going on in the 200+ countries in the Indian continent, Africa, Central and South East Asia, the Middle East, South America, Oceania or even Northern and Eastern Europe.

The Sexual aspect has been in cycles of history, the roaring 20s were a time of world wide open sexuality.

It is the time a society goes toward the occult, and murders their Children, that is a Canary in a coal mine for the fall of a civilization.
At this point People become reprobate in their lust for blood and power..
Genocide, war, and a disregard for all things of God is a form of mass hysteria, that has also repeated throughout history..
Today is one of those times in the history of the World, will it be the last?
I hope so.

From my point of view today is the day when Western morality is beginning to mature. It's finally getting out from under the unjustified moral influence of an ancient, minor, middle eastern religion.

OB

 

[durangodawood]

Yes. I understand that. I am a software engineer. But if AI never enters a crosswalk without sensing pedestrians, if an AI never crosses center line, if an AI senses jaywalking pedestrians, and if every other vehicle on the road is coded to the same standards...etc., then the situation where a choice between saving the one or saving the many will never arise. (Never is a long time, but I'm expressing an ideal.) Too, if one vehicle does its best to save its passengers and the other vehicle does its best to save its passengers, it is likely they will make (can be programmed to) mutually beneficial decisions.

In other words, if you can code to detect a condition where such a decision is necessary, you can probably code to avoid it. As such, there is no moral decision to make.....

Not sure. I had a pedestrian run out from between parked cars right in front of me once. An AI would have applied the brakes sooner, but it cannot overcome the physics of best case braking distances. So does it add a swerve as well as braking? How does it evaluate the downsides of the swerve and balance those against the value of the ped?.... (or do we require pedestrians to wear transmitters such that the AI can "see" them through a parked van so we eliminate that unknown?)

 

[RDKirk]

Y

We'll never agree. I see much of this as a maturation of morality. While there are a couple of items in there which could be argued on the grounds of harmfulness, in general these items are only immoral based on Divine Command Theory. They are wrong because they are defined as wrong by the Bible/God. They are not intrinsically harmful. This is why they are losing the battle.

And I have no problem with that. It's like the US military prohibition against beards.

 

[ClaytonP]

Sacred vs Secular – The Moral Wars

If we go back as little as 100 years, Christianity and secular Western opinion would have, more or less, publicly agreed on a set of moral values or rules.

In my lifetime I’ve seen a gradual separation of sacred and secular opinion on a number of major issues usually - but not always - related to sexual behaviour. This moral rupture appears to be ongoing. In trying to list the various areas of sacred/secular conflict I ended up dividing the list into three groups:

Major Conflicts
Areas where Christian doctrine and the opinions of Christians more or less agree and are in opposition to a secular majority. These are the ongoing hard-fought battles where the split is basically along sacred/secular lines.

Lesser Conflicts
Areas where Christian opinion and doctrine is mixed. While many Christians accept the secular view there is still a significant and vocal Christian opposition based on doctrinal arguments. Outside of the US many of these would qualify as ‘Lost Causes’.

Lost Causes?
The true is/oughts. Concepts which may have Christian doctrinal disagreement but have essentially lost the battle. Quietly accepted by most Westernised Christians.

The list:

Major Conflicts
· Abortion
· Assisted dying
· Same sex marriage
· Gender transition – particularly in younger people

Lesser Conflicts
· Evolution
· Age of the Earth/Universe
· Biblical literalism e.g.

o Genesis
o Noah’s flood
o The Tower of Babel​

· Acceptance of non-stereotypical gender behaviour

Lost Causes?
· Sexual activity outside of marriage
· Acceptance of homosexuality
· Female equality
· Contraception

• Marriage like relationships" (aka 'shacking up')
• Children out of wedlock" (single or partnered)
• Divorce

Is this list a reasonably summary of sacred/secular battle lines? What have I missed?

I see the secular view as winning on all fronts. Am I wrong?

This thread is not about who ‘ought’ to win but who, in real terms, is winning the battle for public acceptance.

OB
Edit: Red text = later additions

No, you are not wrong. The secular Left is winning the battle on all these fronts, with the common thread being mostly a direct and deliberate attack against the traditional family and Christian morals. These are incompatible with Socialist doctrine.
The significance, for me, in the question is your use of the phrase "public acceptance." It is this very motivation that prompted a generation of social behaviorists, academia and political scientists to answer the question, 'how to influence public opinion for the engineering of consent.' At the time stated by yourself, this topic was studied and debated among these minds that sought means and methods to influence and change the beliefs held by the mass.
Lippman, Galbraith, Carnegie, Spooner, etc. They were tasked with the goal of finding means to control human behavior. Behavior is controlled through beliefs.
They found that a critical and successful way to influence beliefs is through "the group." "The mass-man is prone to follow the herd." - Santiago y Gasset. An explosion of "group activities" started in the 1930s and peaked in the 50s. Within the context of all these groups was the underlying design and purpose of establishing Leftist ideology.
It was during these decades that the radio and TV were instrumental in "creating public opinion."
However, the place most vital and necessary to a successful indoctrination was by slowly establishing poisonous doctrine in school curriculum.
Today, social media is "group-think" in macrocosm.
With these weapons, the secular leaves nothing sacred.

 

[Bradskii]

Behavior is controlled through beliefs.
They found that a critical and successful way to influence beliefs is through "the group."

I hope you take your shoe off before shooting yourself in the foot. I see no point in ruining good footware.

 

[Occams Barber]

No, you are not wrong. The secular Left is winning the battle on all these fronts, with the common thread being mostly a direct and deliberate attack against the traditional family and Christian morals. These are incompatible with Socialist doctrine.
The significance, for me, in the question is your use of the phrase "public acceptance." It is this very motivation that prompted a generation of social behaviorists, academia and political scientists to answer the question, 'how to influence public opinion for the engineering of consent.' At the time stated by yourself, this topic was studied and debated among these minds that sought means and methods to influence and change the beliefs held by the mass.
Lippman, Galbraith, Carnegie, Spooner, etc. They were tasked with the goal of finding means to control human behavior. Behavior is controlled through beliefs.
They found that a critical and successful way to influence beliefs is through "the group." "The mass-man is prone to follow the herd." - Santiago y Gasset. An explosion of "group activities" started in the 1930s and peaked in the 50s. Within the context of all these groups was the underlying design and purpose of establishing Leftist ideology.
It was during these decades that the radio and TV were instrumental in "creating public opinion."
However, the place most vital and necessary to a successful indoctrination was by slowly establishing poisonous doctrine in school curriculum.
Today, social media is "group-think" in macrocosm.
With these weapons, the secular leaves nothing sacred.

The Conspiracy Theory Forum is over there >>>>>>>>

OB