On Morality, Ethics, and all that Jazz
You know, easy stuff
Let’s start with some definitions first to make sure that we are all on the same page. I have no idea what the formal definitions are in this space but hopefully this will be enough for mutual understanding.
Agent: Anything that can (seemingly) act to affect the universe around them. Disregard questions of determinism/free-will as they relate here but shouldn’t matter in this context.
Meta-Agent: An agent that is self-aware. In other words: an agent that recognizes its own agent-hood.
State: A configuration of the universe at a given time.
Most Preferred State (MPS): A state in which they would not choose (rank higher) any other state.
Least Preferred State (LPS): A state in which they would choose (rank higher) any other state.
My claims:
Humans are meta-agents.
Other meta-agents can (do?) exist.
Every meta-agent will have a state graph over time that shows for any time (t) there is a state (S) somewhere in between their MPS and LPS.
Maximization of the function S(t) is the thing that meta-agents attempt to do by their actions. One approach would be something like aiming for maximal area under the curve along with a discount factor as time gets more distant from the present. However, it would seem to me there could be many different strategies here.
While it is possible to have ethical/moral frameworks that only consider meta-agents that are humans it is more useful1 to talk about frameworks that consider all meta-agents (animals, aliens, AI, etc).
Any system of ethics/morals (that applies to all meta-agents) should provide a framework for meta-agents to accomplish (4) and therefore should be judged on their ability to do that.
OK this is great and all but why should we care?
I’ve never seen anyone lay out this sort of framework. Someone may have done it but if they have it certainly is not well known. And consequently I find that when you view ethical/moral questions through this framework a lot of those questions become either trivial to answer or meaningless. For example let’s take a look at the definition of Moral Universalism per Wikipedia:
Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other distinguishing feature.
What is hopefully clear here is that this moral framework only makes sense if you consider a set of meta-agents that have very similar state preferences. It cannot apply broadly since the set of all meta-agents includes things such as meta-agents that have reverse state orderings to one another (and other such incompatible things).
Anyways, this is my small attempt at putting this out into the world and opening it up to discussion. Thanks for reading!
Regardless of if you agree that it is more useful everyone should be very careful to clarify which set of meta-agents you are discussing (not everyone’s assumptions will be the same)
I certainly don't feel I've solved metaethics to my own satisfaction, but it's not obvious to me that I should give up on universalist meta-ethics because moral relativism or nihilism is the usual alternative and that has problems too right?