If Engineers Designed Ethical Systems
When unethical behavior on the part of some agent
threatens the life, health, or welfare of living things, ostensibly unethical
behavior necessary to prevent this shall become ethical to the degree that it
prevents more harm to living things than it requires.
What if engineers were assigned to develop an
ethics of living? What would they recommend? What would be a
scientific/engineering approach to ethics?
To begin, the engineer would ask what are the requirements for this ethics and what resources are to be brought to bear? That is, what are the objectives it is to serve, and how well is it expected to do in quantitative terms? And how much are we prepared to expend to achieve the objectives? Then s/he would proceed to design a set of rules and recommendations for behavior which, to the degree they are observed by people, would achieve the requirements, based on observations of human behavior.
Notice that good and evil, right and wrong, are pretty much irrelevant here, except that the objectives and requirements must be held as absolutes. The engineers would not consent to setting these as part of their role as designers of the system. Moreover, the service of the objectives may be defined as "good" and the failure to do so may be held as "evil", especially if it is deliberate and willful.
Ok, so what are the ultimate objectives and requirements of an ethics? Rather than start with the objectives of some higher authority, let's just start with something simple and obvious as life-centered objectives. We can argue that all ethics are either self-centered, or defined by a benevolent higher authority, whose objectives are the same as ours, namely:
1. Survival of human and other life on Earth and-or elsewhere.
2. Optimal health and welfare of human and other life.
It may help to express the inverse of these objectives as those things which are to be avoided:
1. Extinction of living species, especially homo sapiens.
2. Suffering or injury to human and other life on Earth and-or elsewhere.
So what are the engineering requirements for this ethics?
1. Ethical behavior shall support the survival of human and other life and shall exclude any action that is inimical to such survival of any species.
2. Ethical behavior shall advance the health and welfare of human beings on Earth and shall exclude or minimize doing harm to human or other life.
3. When unethical behavior on the part of some agent threatens the life, health, or welfare of living things, ostensibly unethical behavior necessary to prevent this shall become ethical to the degree that it prevents more harm to living things than it requires.
For example, it may be judged ethical under these rules to execute an incorrigible serial killer to eliminate the risk of multiple future deaths. Similarly it may be ethical to wage war upon an incorrigible national leader who has waged war upon neighboring countries or even his own people. However, it must be convincingly demonstrated that more lives and welfare would be spared than consumed by such action. This then becomes the ethics of self-defense, either individually, or collectively when "self" is broadly defined. Under the modern rule of law, the use of necessary and proportionate force in self-defense is allowed by any party upon whom unethical force has been used, or who reasonably believes that unethical force is about to be used on him/her.
Note that use of the words "rule of law", "necessary and proportionate", "reasonably", and "unlawful". Clearly we are assuming the presence of a judicial body that can perform the interpretation of these terms in specific cases, assess the risks, and make a judgment call. Otherwise, anyone would be free to simply accuse another of being a threat, whenever it is desired for whatever reasons to use unethical force on another. Clearly, the existence of an actionable threat (justifying pre-emptive unethical behavior) must be not only asserted but must be demonstrated, to the satisfaction of a judicial body of impartial peers. The devil is in the details here, and it is often impossible to get a judgment before taking action. Then the judgment will follow the action after the fact.
Ok, so what are the rules of ethics that are specified by this engineering formulation? Here is a list of ten that I have assembled. Note that "the golden rule" is featured prominently (#1), because it provides a clear criterion for "health and welfare, suffering and injury". Think of the simple division of resources, which can be objectively accomplished by the simple directive "you cut the cake and I'll choose my piece". The other rules are largely derivative from that first rule. They also include the scientific method as well as its derivative for human affairs, the rule of law.
Pro-Health Ethics
1. Treat others as you would be treated, even in defending yourself (don't commit offenses you would not suffer)
2. Respect all living things of nature (do not kill)
3. Speak the truth (don't lie)
4. Conserve what you consume (don't waste)
5. Think critically and imaginatively (don't be superstitious)
6. Admit mistakes and learn from them (don't be arrogant)
7. Be optimistic and push yourself (don't despair)
8. Take action and initiative (don't be lazy)
9. Raise healthy children and serve your family and community (don't drop out)
10. Accept aging but conserve your health (care for yourself)
To begin, the engineer would ask what are the requirements for this ethics and what resources are to be brought to bear? That is, what are the objectives it is to serve, and how well is it expected to do in quantitative terms? And how much are we prepared to expend to achieve the objectives? Then s/he would proceed to design a set of rules and recommendations for behavior which, to the degree they are observed by people, would achieve the requirements, based on observations of human behavior.
Notice that good and evil, right and wrong, are pretty much irrelevant here, except that the objectives and requirements must be held as absolutes. The engineers would not consent to setting these as part of their role as designers of the system. Moreover, the service of the objectives may be defined as "good" and the failure to do so may be held as "evil", especially if it is deliberate and willful.
Ok, so what are the ultimate objectives and requirements of an ethics? Rather than start with the objectives of some higher authority, let's just start with something simple and obvious as life-centered objectives. We can argue that all ethics are either self-centered, or defined by a benevolent higher authority, whose objectives are the same as ours, namely:
1. Survival of human and other life on Earth and-or elsewhere.
2. Optimal health and welfare of human and other life.
It may help to express the inverse of these objectives as those things which are to be avoided:
1. Extinction of living species, especially homo sapiens.
2. Suffering or injury to human and other life on Earth and-or elsewhere.
So what are the engineering requirements for this ethics?
1. Ethical behavior shall support the survival of human and other life and shall exclude any action that is inimical to such survival of any species.
2. Ethical behavior shall advance the health and welfare of human beings on Earth and shall exclude or minimize doing harm to human or other life.
3. When unethical behavior on the part of some agent threatens the life, health, or welfare of living things, ostensibly unethical behavior necessary to prevent this shall become ethical to the degree that it prevents more harm to living things than it requires.
For example, it may be judged ethical under these rules to execute an incorrigible serial killer to eliminate the risk of multiple future deaths. Similarly it may be ethical to wage war upon an incorrigible national leader who has waged war upon neighboring countries or even his own people. However, it must be convincingly demonstrated that more lives and welfare would be spared than consumed by such action. This then becomes the ethics of self-defense, either individually, or collectively when "self" is broadly defined. Under the modern rule of law, the use of necessary and proportionate force in self-defense is allowed by any party upon whom unethical force has been used, or who reasonably believes that unethical force is about to be used on him/her.
Note that use of the words "rule of law", "necessary and proportionate", "reasonably", and "unlawful". Clearly we are assuming the presence of a judicial body that can perform the interpretation of these terms in specific cases, assess the risks, and make a judgment call. Otherwise, anyone would be free to simply accuse another of being a threat, whenever it is desired for whatever reasons to use unethical force on another. Clearly, the existence of an actionable threat (justifying pre-emptive unethical behavior) must be not only asserted but must be demonstrated, to the satisfaction of a judicial body of impartial peers. The devil is in the details here, and it is often impossible to get a judgment before taking action. Then the judgment will follow the action after the fact.
Ok, so what are the rules of ethics that are specified by this engineering formulation? Here is a list of ten that I have assembled. Note that "the golden rule" is featured prominently (#1), because it provides a clear criterion for "health and welfare, suffering and injury". Think of the simple division of resources, which can be objectively accomplished by the simple directive "you cut the cake and I'll choose my piece". The other rules are largely derivative from that first rule. They also include the scientific method as well as its derivative for human affairs, the rule of law.
Pro-Health Ethics
1. Treat others as you would be treated, even in defending yourself (don't commit offenses you would not suffer)
2. Respect all living things of nature (do not kill)
3. Speak the truth (don't lie)
4. Conserve what you consume (don't waste)
5. Think critically and imaginatively (don't be superstitious)
6. Admit mistakes and learn from them (don't be arrogant)
7. Be optimistic and push yourself (don't despair)
8. Take action and initiative (don't be lazy)
9. Raise healthy children and serve your family and community (don't drop out)
10. Accept aging but conserve your health (care for yourself)
Posted: Tue - November 9, 2004 at 07:45 p.m. | |
Quick Links
About This Site
This is the R&R site of Tom Moore of Crofton, MD USA.
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Blogs Rolled
Links
Categories
Blogroll Me!
Archives
Comments
XML/RSS Feed
Recent Toons
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Sep 01, 2005 06:35 p.m.
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Sep 01, 2005 06:35 p.m.