Social interaction, according to Wikipedia, "is a dynamic, changing sequence of social actions between individuals (or groups) who modify their actions and reactions according to those of their interaction partner(s). In other words, they are events in which people attach meaning to a situation, interpret what others are meaning, and respond accordingly."
That is to say that social interaction is the mechanism by which people modify their (social) behavior in response to the actions of others. If you lived on an island with no other people, it is unlikely that your behaviors would change much beyond the behaviors necessary to survive. If you lived in a small tribe any changes in your behavior would most like be directed towards survival of the tribe as well. It seems that as the social unit becomes larger and more complex, then the behaviors that you modify as a result of social interaction become more complex and of larger scope as well.
The point that I am reaching for here is to suggest that social interaction technologies have made or will make the social unit extend to the entire planet. So, we will be interacting with each other and modifying our behaviors in ways that affect the entire human race. Some of this will undoubtedly be good. And some will undoubtedly be bad.
The question is - do we just let things unfold and see what happens; or should we take a hand in influencing the future? It is a tough call because most people believe that it is better to not make things worse with your actions than it is to make things worse in an attempt to make things better. But, is this still true? Are we at a point where the impact of future changes is such that not doing anything is a greater evil than doing the wrong thing? I really can't answer that. All I can do is raise the question.
Showing posts with label possible consequentialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label possible consequentialism. Show all posts
Monday, June 15, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Big History
I am currently (not at this second, but at this time) listening to a wonderful lecture series from The Teaching Company called Big History. The lecturer is Professor David Christian from San Diego State University. I mention this for three reasons.
First, the lecture series from the Teaching Company are wonderfully interesting lectures on a diverse range of topics and I highly recommend them. I have listened to dozens of these lectures comprising hundreds of hours of informative enjoyment. I listen while in the car or while out walking or hiking. For the enjoyment value alone these lectures are worthwhile. But, that is not all.
Second, exposure to a diverse range of ideas is very important as you never know where important insights may come from. I can say with a fairly high degree of certainly that I have not listened to a single set of lectures that has not provided me with insights well beyond the topics of the lectures. These insights usually apply to things I am currently working on or thinking about and provide me with new ways of looking at problems.
And third, this ties in with what I was saying in my last post. So it is on point to this thread. However, that will take a little explaining. Christian's thesis is that you can unify all of history from the Big Bang to modern times, despite the vast differences in the scale of time and space by looking at history as a process of the creation of great complexity. Further, if we see this complexity as occurring in steps, we can see it line up with our current academic disciplines. Cosmology (Big Bang), Astronomy (Stars and Solar Systems), Geology (Planets), Chemistry (Particles), Biology (Life Forms), Sociology (Societies), and so on. This is a very clever idea and I have not done it justice here, but have sketched out enough to make my point.
Social interaction is the engine by which societies form and evolve. As such, it is on a par with, say Chemical Reactions or Biological Reactions. We have a reasonably good grasp these days on chemical reactions, less on biological reactions, and less yet on social interaction. Tinkering with chemical reactions when you don't understand them puts you at risk for blowing yourself up. Tinkering with biological reactions when you don't understand them puts you at risk for poisoning yourself. Tinkering with social interaction must put you at risk for something. But we don't even understand enough to know what we might be risking. Yet we have these powerful accelerants called social interaction technologies. And we have no idea what the consequences of these technologies might be. So, context may be a little more important than we realize.
First, the lecture series from the Teaching Company are wonderfully interesting lectures on a diverse range of topics and I highly recommend them. I have listened to dozens of these lectures comprising hundreds of hours of informative enjoyment. I listen while in the car or while out walking or hiking. For the enjoyment value alone these lectures are worthwhile. But, that is not all.
Second, exposure to a diverse range of ideas is very important as you never know where important insights may come from. I can say with a fairly high degree of certainly that I have not listened to a single set of lectures that has not provided me with insights well beyond the topics of the lectures. These insights usually apply to things I am currently working on or thinking about and provide me with new ways of looking at problems.
And third, this ties in with what I was saying in my last post. So it is on point to this thread. However, that will take a little explaining. Christian's thesis is that you can unify all of history from the Big Bang to modern times, despite the vast differences in the scale of time and space by looking at history as a process of the creation of great complexity. Further, if we see this complexity as occurring in steps, we can see it line up with our current academic disciplines. Cosmology (Big Bang), Astronomy (Stars and Solar Systems), Geology (Planets), Chemistry (Particles), Biology (Life Forms), Sociology (Societies), and so on. This is a very clever idea and I have not done it justice here, but have sketched out enough to make my point.
Social interaction is the engine by which societies form and evolve. As such, it is on a par with, say Chemical Reactions or Biological Reactions. We have a reasonably good grasp these days on chemical reactions, less on biological reactions, and less yet on social interaction. Tinkering with chemical reactions when you don't understand them puts you at risk for blowing yourself up. Tinkering with biological reactions when you don't understand them puts you at risk for poisoning yourself. Tinkering with social interaction must put you at risk for something. But we don't even understand enough to know what we might be risking. Yet we have these powerful accelerants called social interaction technologies. And we have no idea what the consequences of these technologies might be. So, context may be a little more important than we realize.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Truth and Method
Francis Bacon said that method is more important than genius in discovering knowledge. He compared our pursuit of truth to a runner in pursuit of a destination. Method is the path and genius is the speed of the runner. A runner on the wrong path will get to the wrong place. If he happens to be a fast runner, he will get to the wrong place sooner. A runner on the right path will get to the right place. If he happens to be a slow runner, he will still get there. It will just take a little longer. So, method, according to Bacon will get us to the truth eventually. Genius will just get us to the wrong places faster.
Despite the variety of truth that we discussed a couple posts ago, they all have a similar method by which we arrived at them. Truth begins with a claim of some kind that we then attempt to determine the veracity of. Then we continue to test the veracity. Over time, if the claim continues to hold up as more and more people test the veracity, then we begin to accept the claim as true. This sketch of our method for discovering truth needs a little more fleshing out, but the essence holds up across different domains.
First, the claim cannot just be any willy nilly claim. It has to be a valid claim based on our understanding of the domain and clearly derivable from the things we know.
Second, the attempts to determine the veracity should be skeptical but not cynical. Skeptical means that we are trying to determine the truth rather than re-enforce what we want to believe. Not being cynical means that we have to accept evidence that is not 100% certain.
And, third, the motives of those who do repeated testing on the idea should be to determine the veracity of the idea and not some other agenda such as discrediting it. And, if the claim continues to hold up over time and under repeated challenges, then we accept its durability and accept it as the truth.
The next step is to show how this sketch of method holds up in the variety of areas we already discussed, revealing that scientific truth, literary truth, historical truth, and even moral truths have something in common. And we will see how this apporach applies to the use of stories in the pursuit of moral truth. Finally, just to push things to their limit, I will introduce a notion of truth about the future which I will call imaginary truth. Imaginary truth can and will be held to the same standards of durability as our other notions of truth. And, imaginary truth gives us a headlight into the future that we badly need as the future continues to come at us at an increasingly faster rate.
Despite the variety of truth that we discussed a couple posts ago, they all have a similar method by which we arrived at them. Truth begins with a claim of some kind that we then attempt to determine the veracity of. Then we continue to test the veracity. Over time, if the claim continues to hold up as more and more people test the veracity, then we begin to accept the claim as true. This sketch of our method for discovering truth needs a little more fleshing out, but the essence holds up across different domains.
First, the claim cannot just be any willy nilly claim. It has to be a valid claim based on our understanding of the domain and clearly derivable from the things we know.
Second, the attempts to determine the veracity should be skeptical but not cynical. Skeptical means that we are trying to determine the truth rather than re-enforce what we want to believe. Not being cynical means that we have to accept evidence that is not 100% certain.
And, third, the motives of those who do repeated testing on the idea should be to determine the veracity of the idea and not some other agenda such as discrediting it. And, if the claim continues to hold up over time and under repeated challenges, then we accept its durability and accept it as the truth.
The next step is to show how this sketch of method holds up in the variety of areas we already discussed, revealing that scientific truth, literary truth, historical truth, and even moral truths have something in common. And we will see how this apporach applies to the use of stories in the pursuit of moral truth. Finally, just to push things to their limit, I will introduce a notion of truth about the future which I will call imaginary truth. Imaginary truth can and will be held to the same standards of durability as our other notions of truth. And, imaginary truth gives us a headlight into the future that we badly need as the future continues to come at us at an increasingly faster rate.
Monday, March 2, 2009
The Role of Stories in the Ethics of Virtual Worlds
In a previous post, I cited Marshall McLuhan's famous, and yet apocryphal quote "looking to the past to understand the future is like driving by looking in the rear view mirror." A rapidly changing technological base creates a path into the future with a lot of twists and turns, in which the future comes at us with increasing rapidity. The question is - how do we get a headlight into the future that will allow us to look forward instead of backwards in order to make decisions about what we need to do. The answer, I believe, is stories. Stories provide a headlight into the future, a way to explore possible worlds and possible outcomes.
My favorite example of this kind of story is Micheal Crichton's Jurassic Park. This cautionary tale is an attempt to explore the ethics of bio technology in a narrative form. Crichton's argument is that if you have unregulated bio tech research and have scientists working primarily for profit or fame, then all hell will break loose and nature will strike back at you. This book is a masterpiece of writing technique and makes a compelling narrative argument. But, it is only one possible narrative argument.
I teach a class in writing stories to explore the ethcis of technology, and, in this class, I have students find a flaw in Crichton's argument and provide a narrative alternative. Consider, for a moment, some of the stories that have swayed public thinking in a major way. These include: The Jungle, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Hard Times and Frankenstein; just to name a few. Each of these stories has presented one single narrative argument, one possible world. What we really need is to have authors take on more sides of the argument and allow us to see a variety of possible worlds.
In the same way that scientific debates lead to a better understanding of what is true, narrative debates can allow us to acheive a better understanding of what is good or what is desirable. And, here we are back to writing again. In Plato's Republic, he dismissed the poets to focus on rationality. Perhaps, now, in the 21st century, we will realise that rationality isn't everything and invite the poets back in.
My favorite example of this kind of story is Micheal Crichton's Jurassic Park. This cautionary tale is an attempt to explore the ethics of bio technology in a narrative form. Crichton's argument is that if you have unregulated bio tech research and have scientists working primarily for profit or fame, then all hell will break loose and nature will strike back at you. This book is a masterpiece of writing technique and makes a compelling narrative argument. But, it is only one possible narrative argument.
I teach a class in writing stories to explore the ethcis of technology, and, in this class, I have students find a flaw in Crichton's argument and provide a narrative alternative. Consider, for a moment, some of the stories that have swayed public thinking in a major way. These include: The Jungle, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Hard Times and Frankenstein; just to name a few. Each of these stories has presented one single narrative argument, one possible world. What we really need is to have authors take on more sides of the argument and allow us to see a variety of possible worlds.
In the same way that scientific debates lead to a better understanding of what is true, narrative debates can allow us to acheive a better understanding of what is good or what is desirable. And, here we are back to writing again. In Plato's Republic, he dismissed the poets to focus on rationality. Perhaps, now, in the 21st century, we will realise that rationality isn't everything and invite the poets back in.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Virtual Worlds and Possible Consequentialism
Since more the more traditional character and experience based ethical theories have limited application for virtual worlds, what basis do we have for defining appropriate behavior? One answer is that we can just wait and see what happens. Over time we will develop experience and over time a community will coalesce that can define appropriate behavior. But there are three problems with this approach. First, during that time when we are developing experience, things will be happening in virtual worlds that may not be to our liking. Second, once standards of virtual world behavior evolve and coalesce they may be very difficult to change. So, we may realize how things ought to be, but be unable to make them that way. Third, since the technology continues to evolve, the requisite experience continues to shift. We may not be able to acquire the requisite experiences until the technology stabilizes and that may be a lot longer than we are willing to wait. Having said all that, there is merit in waiting. In the early days of the web, some people would like to have restricted free speech and impose severe penalties for copyright infringement. That debate is still going on and we shouldn't be enforcing standards until we figure out what those standards ought to be. I don't think waiting is a bad idea. I just don't think it is the best idea. What do I think is the best idea?
Several years ago, I wrote a series of papers in computer ethics in which I introduced an ethical theory which I called possible consequentialism. Unlike the more traditional consequentialist theories that set ethical standards based upon the consequences of an act or rule, possible consequentialism considers possible consequences. This seems to be an appropriate basis for making ethical decisions under the conditions of a rapidly evolving technology where the consequences of any given standard may not be known at the time when the standard needs to be developed. That's all well and good, but how do we know the possible consequences? That is what we will turn to next.
Several years ago, I wrote a series of papers in computer ethics in which I introduced an ethical theory which I called possible consequentialism. Unlike the more traditional consequentialist theories that set ethical standards based upon the consequences of an act or rule, possible consequentialism considers possible consequences. This seems to be an appropriate basis for making ethical decisions under the conditions of a rapidly evolving technology where the consequences of any given standard may not be known at the time when the standard needs to be developed. That's all well and good, but how do we know the possible consequences? That is what we will turn to next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)