experimental ethics

What could experimental ethics be? A quick google search ensures that the concept is not new. The top two hits pointed to a chapter of Walter Fritz’s free ebook Intelligent Systems and Their Societies titled “Ethics as a Science” (with a sub part called “Experimental Ethics”). In this chapter he explains how Intelligent Systems and namely human beings can develop a science of ethics that would produce ethical knowledge independent of religious or other presuppositions. This scientific ethics is a calculus based on a basic ethical principal that you should only do those things that will achieve your goal while not harming anyone else. (We are here very close to Rawl’s minimax rule or Kants categorical imperative.)  The idea is not new (indeed these Intelligent Systems sound quite a bit like Kantian reasonable beings) and also not objectionable.

However, this ethical science falls short of being very useful. The main problem is that it remains theoretical, in the sense that it is a form of knowledge about ethics and not an actual being good. The science is too formal and abstract to really be able to answer such questions as “Should i get an abortion?” or “How should i deal with my messy roommate?”

The sub section on “Experimental Ethics” is very short and suggests that the experiments in question be carried out on computers in artificial simulations. Again, the problem with such an approach is that it would only produce (highly abstract) information about how one should be ethical and would not even supply a “How To” guide for getting the ethics from the printout into real-world institutions.

If ethics is going to be experimental and thus scientific, it is going to have to adapt science to itself and squeeze into the current mould of “science”. Ethics is about doing good and an experimental ethics should not produce theories about how to be good but should produce actual good actions.

The natural and social sciences have the goal of producing knowledge. Any application (ipods and central banks) are of secondary importance and not essential to the pursuit of the science. Physics and Economics produce Textbooks and Theories. Though Ethics has indeed also been traditionally considered a theoretical discipline, this position can no longer be held because (1) biologists, among others, have shown us that our ethical intuitions are evolutionarily contingent and (2) because ethics is a fundamentally different type of investigation as other sciences: ethics deals with the good and not the true. Ethics therefore should not produce textbooks but good deeds. Ethical textbooks, of course, exist, but they should only be seen as a means to an end.

An ethical science should not therefore produce knowledge, but action. And an experimental ethics should therefore experiment not on computers but on us people. What would that look like? It would look like people (a) describing a situation, (b) proposing a solution they suppose good, (c) implementing the idea and (d) evaluating the result, which might lead to (e) proposing a modified solution, etc. Such an experimental ethics would have the great advantage that it would produce good during the experimental process.

To return to Walter Fritz’s science of ethics, what he proposes does not do justice to the particular nature of that branch of human inquiry called ethics. What we often forget, and what philosophers and university rectors have for centuries now forgotten, is that ethics cannot be known (or taught) without being at the same time implemented. A good ethics teacher is a good ethics teacher. And a good ethical scientist can therefore be none other than a scientist who is becoming good.

Advertisements
Tags: ,

2 Comments to “experimental ethics”

  1. An ethical science should not therefore produce knowledge, but action. And an experimental ethics should therefore experiment not on computers but on us people. What would that look like? It would look like people (a) describing a situation, (b) proposing a solution they suppose good, (c) implementing the idea and (d) evaluating the result, which might lead to (e) proposing a modified solution, etc. Such an experimental ethics would have the great advantage that it would produce good during the experimental process.

    Interesting ideas. I would add to (b) that the proposed solution might be good or bad, and that the scientist is just testing their hypothesis.

    Can you explain a bit more how (d) would work? How is the result (objectively) evaluated?

  2. i agree that (b) could be good or bad, though hopefully it’ll be the former more often than the latter. And yes, it would simply be a (working) hypothesis.

    as for (d) i don’t envision much more than the person(s) at some point coming up with a “yea, that worked” or a “nah, that didn’t quite work because ….”

    To take an example: if u tend to be too lazy, you could decide to force yourself to do 10 pushups everymorning to see if that strengthened your ability stick to a task. If after a week (1) you are still doing ur pushups and are slightly more dedicated in other matters, than u would evaluate the experiment positively and (a) leave it at that success or (b) see if longer exercise periods would help even more; but if after a while (2) you aren’t doing your pushups anymore or your character does not seem to have changed, then either (a) you decide your doomed or (b) you try an easier or a more enjoyable type of activity that you will be able to consistently carry through.

    So the result is not quite _objectively_ evaluated, certainly not by an “independent observer”, but it is assessed by the person in question. I assume most people will be able to figure out if they’ve moved forwards or not. I suppose the solution could be rendered _more_ objective if enough people come to similar conclusions; we could over time produce “rules of thumb” of the type: “If your are in situation A and have problem B (and are a type of person C) then doing D might well help”

Say something interesting

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: