Taggart3d ago
I'm beginning to suspect that some core deontological programming is starting to cause significant bugs in ethical reasoning across the entire system.
Show threadTaggart2d ago

I'm really struggling with the idea that the responsibility to correct for corporate evil resides with individuals, and that failing to do so constitutes some form of evil itself.

It would seem tantamount to castigating individuals for not recycling "enough" when the true cause of pollution lies with industry.

It would seem a way for capital to coerce the pro-human and anti-capital to tear each other apart, causing nothing but self-inflicted wounds.

Then again, blithe oblivion to whence one's resources come also seems irresponsible.

But like, I have work to do that is more important than choosing the least impure tool every goddamn day.

Show threadTaggart2d ago
And this is where deontology comes into the picture: there is some proximity to "evil" that we must not tolerate, but the line is different for everyone, and its designation often derives from moral absolutes that lie closer to the heart than the head. And I dunno, as much as consequentialism has proven its capacity for horror, I think sourcing morality from a higher plane has as well.
Show threadTed Lemon2d ago

@mttaggart

I read a really good analysis sort of in this direction the other day: https://mastodon.nl/@abhayakara/116251929650735281

In addition, I'd suggest that "evil" is not the right frame. Most of us imagine we have agency where we don't, and fail to take advantage of agency where we do.

In this case, deciding which tools you use is not a place where you have much agency, and you rob yourself of actual agency by wasting neurons on this.

Where most of have agency is in collective work on the system.

Ted Lemon (@[email protected])

This is worth reading just for the ethical philosophy. Really, he shoots utilitarianism in the head in the second paragraph, and makes it stick. The analysis of AI ethics specifically is good, perhaps with not enough emphasis on the creation of technical debt. https://types.pl/@wilbowma/116247527449271232

Mastodon.nl door Stichting Activityclub
Show threadTed Lemon2d ago

@mttaggart

A lot of this work is actually just figuring out how not to damage solidarity, because many of our cultural norms do that. We argue over ideology when we share the same values, and wind up failing to work together. We allow human cognitive biases with respect to hierarchy to bypass our own judgment when we could actually do something differently than what the hierarchy tells us to do, and that would actually be okay even to the hierarchy.

Show threadTaggart2d ago
@abhayakara I don't disagree with you (I kinda do with the linked piece, but I'll deal with that later). Evil is not my framing, but those who would call me such for using tools adjacent to the government.
Show threadTed Lemon2d ago

@mttaggart

I don't entirely agree with him either, but certainly his takedown of consequentialism was solid and helpful, and I think the method of analysis is good even if you might have somewhat different baseline philosophies.

Regarding the evil tools question, what I would ask is, why are you having this argument? It sounds an awful lot like people with shared values arguing over ideology, which is just a category error.

Show threadTed Lemon2d ago

@mttaggart

Ideology is testable, or else it's garbage. There's no need to argue about it. Just test it, or if you can't test it, agree that it would be interesting to test it and set it aside until you can.

Show threadTaggart

@abhayakara I think it's worth examining how we exist in the world for inconsistencies, and since we exist alongside other people with varying views and feelings, alignment on these issues kinda matters.

Here I've identified a common sentiment in communities in which I exist that is in tension with my intuition. So the "argument," such as it is, is as much with myself as anything. I'm attempting to arrive at synthesis and doing so in public in the hopes that my ethical struggle can inform others.

Ideology is testable, or else it's garbage.

The entire point of deontology is that ultimately you're ascribing to something untestable for moral value, so...no not entirely. Maybe it's garbage to you, but as I indicate, it's a framework employed by many, and so we must consider it.

Mar 19 at 9:17pmWeb
Show threadTed Lemon2d ago

@mttaggart

Why must we consider it? It all devolves to whether or not the ideologue is willing to use force or not. If they are, then the problem is that they are willing to use force, and their ideology is a side issue. If they are not, there's no problem.

Show threadTaggart2d ago

@abhayakara I don't think it does all devolve to that, no. If I'm building solidarity, to your point, with others who feel strongly on this issue, it would be prudent to understand and account for differences in beliefs here. Dismissing them out of hand leads to negative affect and lack of participation. How do we get over our disagreements? First, by understanding them, and examining our own beliefs carefully.

I should note that my own ethical framework is based largely on the ethics of care, which centers interpersonal relationships and duties to others as the primary contributors to moral value. This is in contrast to more empirical frameworks, but it also means I cannot dismiss people in my community outright.

Show threadTed Lemon2d ago

@mttaggart

Ah, I don't mean to dismiss them out of hand. I mean to treat them realistically. Like, "is this actionable now?" If yes, let's take action. If no, let's figure out what action we can take that gets us to where we can take action on it.

I think the ethics of care is a very reasonable way to think about this, and that is indeed a challenge. E.g. if as in my previous example, someone wants to use force to make their ideology happen, you still have to engage with that.

Show threadTed Lemon2d ago

@mttaggart

And if they don't, that doesn't mean you should dismiss it.

But part of the process has to be spreading better approaches. E.g., if you are thinking in terms of ethics of care and they are thinking in terms of winning the argument, that doesn't mean your ethics of care are no longer important, but you can't just take on the whole burden of solidarity yourself.

Show threadTed Lemon2d ago

@mttaggart

And this person with their ideology has some reason for holding that ideology, and that reason is probably a more effective place to connect than the ideology itself.

And that's to say nothing of the problem that usually when people talk about solving a problem, they want two things: comfort/care, and to solve the problem.

Prioritizing comfort/care is totally valid, maybe even correct. Particularly if the problem can't be solved.

Show threadTed Lemon2d ago

@mttaggart

But when someone has unreasonable demands, and you want to prioritize comfort/care, the point is to figure out how to do that, not to take the top-layer communication as if it were literally what they need to communicate.

Show threadTed Lemon2d ago

@mttaggart

Also, just to be clear, what I mean by ideology is things like "capitalism is the best way to distribute resources."

When someone says that, I can immediately agree with them that we need a way to distribute resources, and that indeed capitalism might be the best way. And then we can talk about how to test that theory.

By doing that I'm validating their core need, and gently interrogating the ideology in a way that fosters cooperation.

Show threadTed Lemon2d ago

@mttaggart

I don't actually care which ideology is correct. My goal is just to identify what we can cooperate on now. And if I'm not stupid in how I communicate about it (which I usually am, don't get me started, this is a work in progress, quit hassling me :) we can now cooperate without ever deciding who is right about the ideology.

Show threadTed Lemon2d ago

@mttaggart

BTW, I don't mean to minimize your struggle, but rather to participate in it. It's entirely possible that I'm wrong!