Tag: Ethics

Posted on

What Artificial Intelligence Cannot Do

Self Reflection

Fresno Bee, April 5, 2025

Artificial intelligence is already changing the world. But will it change our humanity?

Bill Gates recently predicted that AI will soon be widely employed to supplement and even replace a lot of labor that currently requires human experts. This may include accountants, teachers, doctors and computer programmers. Any profession that requires repetitive information processing and rule-following expertise can be supplemented or replaced by AI.

This may free up human intellect to engage in more creative and imaginative tasks. It may also leave humans with more time to focus on interpersonal and relationship-based work. But there are also AI “therapists” and “friends” available online. AI companions are always available. The AI friend, Replika, touts itself as “always here to listen and talk. Always on your side.”

The convenience and efficiency of AI will lead to its widespread use. AI never sleeps — it never tires, or becomes fed up or impatient, unlike real human companions.

As AI development increases, it will be used to create even more powerful technology. This technological acceleration has led some experts to predict that artificial general intelligence will soon be created (something akin to human thinking but faster, tireless and not prone to laziness, procrastination or daydreaming). Others think the creation of artificial general intelligence is decades off; some say it is impossible.

As AI transforms into artifical general intelligence, it could be applied (or apply itself) to generating even more intelligent machinery. Some fear the creation of artificial super intelligence, a fear fueled by fictional sci-fi dystopias in which artificial super intelligence takes over and kills or enslaves humans.

Leaving that nightmare aside, there is no doubt that AI is already changing the meaning of a variety of human tasks. This will continue to happen as the technology becomes so efficient that resistance is futile. This may sound ominous, but it happens all the time as technologies improve.

The inexorable efficiency of technology explains why we prefer to ride rather than walk. It’s why we send texts instead of writing old-fashioned letters. The efficiency imperative will likely lead us to replace inefficient human beings with efficient AI in many parts of life. Why bother to write a report if AI can do it for you faster and better? Why bother to wake a real friend in a crisis in the middle of the night when AI is there to chat?

Of course, some people still write letters or walk. And there is a kind of pleasure to be found in completing your own tax form, or in writing computer code. But those quaint human activities are now a matter of choice. They represent a kind of boutique curiosity, chosen not for efficiency but for some other reason.

This is where the human element returns. Many things are valuable not because they are efficient, but because they are good, beautiful, intellectually challenging or uniquely human.

Friendship is like that: An AI-companion may be more efficient at giving advice in difficult times, or at keeping us entertained. But real human friendship is valuable for other reasons. Human friendship is not simply a one-sided exchange in which we use the other person for our benefit. Rather, friends make demands upon us. Their impatience reminds us to slow down. Their needs give us reason to look beyond our own.

The demands that other humans make upon us are infinitely more valuable than the cult of efficiency can imagine. Other human beings are part of who we are. When a friend or family member triumphs, we swell with pride for them. When they suffer, we suffer with them. And when they die, they take a part of us away with them.

AI will never replace the deeply inefficient existential reality of love, suffering and mortality. AI is fast, convenient and always available. But it cannot supplant the difficult experiences and troublesome relationships that make us fully human. Efficiency is a machine-based good. But human life is not mechanical. The wonder of existence is found in the tragic and often beautiful mess that is human nature.

To be human is not to be efficient. Rather, it is love, suffer and die. And that’s what no machine can ever do.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article303416756.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Population Ethics: How Many Children are Enough?

Fresno Bee, August 18, 2024

Fewer people are having children. Some are warning ominously of an impending population collapse in Europe and North America, but the U.N. projects that the global population will continue to grow through this century to about 10 billion people.

The issue is polarizing and politicized. It is connected to J.D. Vance’s “childless cat ladies” remark, as well as concerns about global warming, women’s rights and reproductive healthcare. Young people are also confronting an epidemic of loneliness and fear for the future of the planet.

If human life is good, it’s good to have lots of children. Traditional religion says, “be fruitful and multiply.” If life is a gift of God, and God wants us to be fruitful, then we ought to multiply. But modern revolutions in agriculture and medicine have caused a population boom that archaic religions could not have imagined.

The ancient idea of fruitful multiplying is less salient in a hot, crowded world.

Ethical judgment often involves questions of quantity: How long is too long to live, or to serve in political office? How much wealth or freedom is the right amount? And what is the optimal number of people?

Quantitative questions quickly lead to questions of quality. In planning for retirement or thinking about healthcare at the end of life, the number of years of life is less important than the quality of those years. Something similar holds with regard to population: More is not always better when it comes to people. The ethical question is not merely how many people, but how to optimize the quality of life for children, parents and everyone else.

The question of optimal population is a concern for those who manage crowds. We understand this when we stand in line for a bathroom or a beverage at a stadium or look for a parking place in Yosemite National Park. At some point, the quantity of people ruins the quality of the experience for everyone. This is especially true under conditions of scarcity — basic carrying capacity can be altered with innovation and technology, but there are limits.

Stadiums could be built with more amenities, but there are costs and trade-offs. When the limit is reached, the crowds become unbearable. The natural world imposes objective limits. Yosemite Valley is a narrow valley bisected by a river. On busy weekends, traffic and parking are difficult. In response, Yosemite has imposed a system of reservations during the summer. Fewer people in the park preserves the quality of the experience for everyone.

In my own field of education, the quantitative issue concerns student-faculty ratios and class sizes. This depends on the quality of instruction, as well as the abilities and interests of the students. Kindergartens ought to be small. Private coaching is necessary for elite performers. But massive online courses can work well if the teaching is good and the students are motivated. This all depends on what we expect of the overall quality of education.

So, the more general population question is not merely quantitative, it is also qualitative. The snide remark about childless cat ladies is not about population size. Rather, it is about what counts as a good life. The question here is whether having children and raising a family are an essential part of the good life. For much of human history, this was taken for granted. But these days, there are alternative paradigms of human flourishing.

Other complex and contentious ethical questions involving optimizing quality of life emerge. Will there be adequate housing for 10 billion people? Should affluent countries with declining populations bring in immigrants from the developing world? How should we structure the economy to care for our elders? Do childless people have an obligation to pay taxes to support children? And how should we manage fragile ecosystems in a hot, crowded world?

The conversation about population and reproduction is ultimately about our basic conception of the good life, and deserves careful and critical thought. People will disagree about this topic, since it touches upon our deepest beliefs and commitments. But clearly polarization is not helpful. We need philosophers, theologians and political leaders to think carefully and critically about the quality of human life and the question of optimal population.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article291087225.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Corruption and American Values: Turning Rottenness into Teachable Moments

A new “American values” survey from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) finds that Americans are pessimistic: 77% of us believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. A substantial minority think political violence can be justified. And 23% of Americans agree that “because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.”

This is a dangerous development. It can seem that everything is broken. In Congress, they are throwing elbows. The former president is on trial for fraud, defamation and attempting to subvert our democracy. The University of Michigan football team cheated. And war continues to kill innocents.

All of this can be overwhelming. When things grow dark, it is tempting to lose hope. But hopelessness is not warranted. Nor is it prudent. When hope evaporates, malice festers and violence appears on the horizon.

The ugliness of the moment is dispiriting. The worse things stink, the more it seems that everything is rotten. But it is better to smell the taint than to keep it hidden.

This is the paradox of our evolving moral sensibility. In the bad old days, corruption and iniquity were ignored or accepted as normal. In the 21st century, even minor misdeeds become magnified. But this can cause us to lose faith in humanity.

Consider the Kevin McCarthy elbow incident. The former speaker of the House supposedly elbowed Rep. Tim Burchert in the back. Burchert was one of the Republicans who voted to oust McCarthy as speaker. If the accusations are true, McCarthy behaved badly. Resorting to physical violence is always stupid and immature.

The “good news” is that as soon as the elbow was thrown, it was known. And folks piled on with outrage. Rep. Matt Gaetz called for an ethics inquiry. Gaetz was himself the subject of a prior ethics inquiry. His call for an elbow-inquiry prompted McCarthy to say, “I think Ethics is a good place for Gaetz to be.”

These tit-for-tat accusations are silly and sad. It can cause us to lose faith in wisdom and virtue. But again, the good news is when people behave badly, we see it — and rightfully condemn it. The McCarthy elbow incident shows us how not to behave. Something like this is also occurring with the Trump trials, the Michigan cheating scandal, and so on.

The moral lessons of the moment are clear. Keep your elbows to yourself. Don’t lie about your assets or about election results. Cheaters get caught. And violence is stupid.

The crises of the present are “teachable moments.” There are moral lessons and legal case studies all around us. This is an opportunity to remind ourselves about the need for honor, integrity, self-control and compassion.

These basic lessons are not a panacea. It is not easy to root out the rot. Bad things will continue to happen. It can take a long time to bring facts to light. But the process of shedding light on evil does happen. Sometimes bad guys get away with their crimes — for a time. But the slow wheels of justice and truth keep turning.

Seeing all of this rottenness can lead decent people to lose heart. So, we must guard against despair. Human beings can be wicked. But we can learn from our mistakes. We can reform our institutions and our souls. We can get better. Despair and violence only make things worse.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant said that humanity is constructed out of “crooked timber.” It is too much to hope that the warped wood of humanity can be made perfectly straight. But we can learn and improve.

The work of moral improvement is painstaking. Violence is appealing because it is spectacular and quick. But violence does not make anyone better. Instead of violence, we need virtue. We improve our humanity by holding fast to morality and by applying reason and ingenuity to our problems.

The process of improvement demands that we confront the corruption around us. We must call out evil and stupidity when we see it. But rather than dwelling in the mud, we should seek higher ground. We overcome despair by understanding our duty to improve our humanity despite the wickedness of the world.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article281997683.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Ethics Lessons: Learning and Improving

October is global ethics month, at least according to the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. The Carnegie Council has also declared the third Wednesday of October as Global Ethics Day. This October is busy for me in terms of public presentations on ethics. This month, I’ll be talking ethics with economic development professionals, folks working in healthcare, and educational leaders. I’ll also be speaking in Tennessee and Ohio on the ethics of war, and about ethical issues in political life.

As I’m reflecting on the common thread of these presentations, a few things come to mind. First, ethics matters for all human beings. It is especially important for professionals. Second, there are unavoidable moral conflicts. But there is also general consensus about what it takes to be good and to do good work. Finally, ethics can be taught and trained. We are not born knowing the difference between right and wrong. Rather, we learn this from mentors and role models. And even though we begin as novices in living well, we can improve. Let’s consider each of these points in turn.

Ethics matters for everyone including professionals

Human beings mostly want to be good, to do good, and to live good lives. There are some bad actors in the world: criminals and sociopaths exist. And some people may get a thrill out of being notorious, or have a strange admiration for bad guys (as I discussed recently). But for the most part, human beings want to be known for being good. And most people seem to understand that happiness depends in part on virtue.

This is especially true in specialized fields and in the professions. Consider sports as an obvious example. Athletic endeavors have standards of excellence and rules that must be followed. If you value the sport, you ought to want to play by the rules. A person who “wins” a 100-meter race by tripping an opponent has not really won. Cheating defeats the very idea of winning and of excellence in an endeavor.

Now consider the ethical codes, rules, and standards of excellence that govern doctors, lawyers, journalists, artists, and other professionals including soldiers. These ethical ideals define what it means to be a good doctor, lawyer, and so on. To be an excellent member of a professional community, you have to do the right thing.

This is also true in families, friendships, and in life in general. A good mother, father, brother, or friend is honest, kind, courageous, and respectful. Ethics matters in our relationships. It also helps define your identity: what you are known for, and who you are. Some of this is specific to professional roles. But much of what counts as ethical is found in widespread and common ideas about human flourishing and excellence.

Moral conflicts exist but there is also broad general consensus

This broad consensus about ethics is found in typical lists of key virtues, characteristics, and behaviors of good people. Around the world it is widely held that good people are fair, truthful, and compassionate. Different cultures and traditions may emphasize different sorts of virtues, or connect them in different ways. But there is no culture or tradition that says that murder is noble, that we should break our promises, or that cowards are admirable.

This is not to deny that there are conflicts and that some values are relative to culture and history. There are genuine dilemmas in ethics such as the conflict between justice and mercy. Proponents of retributive justice think that justice requires “eye for eye” retaliation. Others call for forgiveness, mercy, and compassion. This is a genuine conflict.

But here is also consensus in addition to conflict. The challenging nature of ethical dilemmas may be why people often spend more time talking about conflicts than about consensus. It is a bit boring to say that everyone values honesty. It is more provocative to think about cases when honesty may not be the best policy—for example, in cases involving spies or when authorities lie to people for their own good.

We can learn to be ethical

Finally, let’s note that we are not born knowing how to be good. I tend to be sympathetic to the idea that human babies are born with a tendency toward prosocial behavior, and maybe even an innate sense of compassion and fairness. But those innate tendencies must be nurtured and developed. Ethical behavior among adults is learned behavior. As Aristotle suggested character is “second nature.”

Goodness is developed by emulating role models. It is further developed by “direct instruction”: by some code or teacher literally explaining to us the difference between right and wrong. We also need coaches and mentors, who encourage us and offer criticism. It helps to have structures of accountability (including rewards and punishments). And we need positive peer pressure: good friends help us be better.

Training and mentorship are also important in professional life. Professional organizations help cultivate good behavior by instructing, coaching, and reminding. They hold individuals accountable, reward good behavior, and punish the bad. Good organizations often have codes, training programs, and systems that reinforce values and ideals. All of that is important for what is called “professionalization,” which is the process by which people come to identify with the values of professional life.

The Value of Ethics Month

With all of that on the table, let me conclude by suggesting why it is useful to have a month and a day dedicated to ethics. It is easy to get lazy and take your eye off the ball. But if you want to live well, you need reminders and admonitions. We often take virtue and character for granted and simply assume that people will figure this out for themselves. Some folks may also think that some people are just good by nature, and others are irredeemably corrupt. But the truth is that we can improve. Reminders help, as do mentors and role models. It also helps to set aside some time—a month, a day, or an hour—to think critically and explicitly about ethics.  

Posted on

Climate change, spiritual development, and the gates of hell

Fresno Bee, September 24, 2023

Climate change forces Americans to reconsider profit, greed, power and truth.

This past week, the Secretary General of the UN, António Guterres, described the climate emergency with apocalyptic language. He said, “Humanity has opened the gates of hell.” He called for quick action to avoid the climate inferno.

This call to action is not directed primarily at individuals like you and me. Individuals can drive less, for example. Or you could eat less meat. But the climate-friendly choices of individuals are less important than institutional and systemic change. To close the gates of hell, nations, states and corporations need to be transformed.

One interesting step occurred in California this past week. The state sued five major oil companies, claiming these firms lied about the climate impact of their products. The lawsuit alleges that the oil companies encouraged “disinformation and denialism” about the link between fossil fuels and climate change. This included a deliberate effort to “discredit” the scientific consensus about that link.

Gov. Gavin Newsom said, “For more than 50 years, Big Oil has been lying to us — covering up the fact that they’ve long known how dangerous the fossil fuels they produce are for our planet.” Attorney General Rob Bonta said, “Oil and gas companies have privately known the truth for decades — that the burning of fossil fuels leads to climate change — but have fed us lies and mistruths to further their record-breaking profits at the expense of our environment.”

Activists have called out this bad behavior for a long time. But the California lawsuit puts teeth behind the accusations by aiming to punish the oil companies. The proceeds of any settlement will establish a fund that would be used to respond to climate emergencies and to pay for mitigation and adaptation efforts. All of this is occurring at a time when gas prices are high, cars are expensive, and auto workers are on strike.

Could this be the beginning of a radical shift in the fossil fuel infrastructure? Maybe. But while lawsuits aimed at corporations could be part of the solution, the long-term solution must be cooperative rather than hostile. The oil companies should stop lying. But greed, power, and short-term self-interest are not easy to overcome. And so, while punishment and blame are on the table, the ultimate solution requires a change of culture and moral development.

Consider the moral and cultural shifts that have occurred in prior movements for social change. The abolition of slavery in the United States required a war. But that war was accompanied by a shift in moral thinking, which held that slavery was simply wrong. The movement for women’s rights required a struggle in the streets. That struggle was paralleled by a shift in our understanding of women and men. A similar process unfolded in the civil rights movement.

There is a chicken-or-egg question in these movements. Did the moral shift come first, or was it a result of struggle? There is no simple answer here. There are layers and phases and feedback loops in these cultural transformations. Antagonism is part of any struggle. But the long-term goal is moral development. Cultural shifts ask us to re-conceive our humanity, to reorder our priorities, and to respond in new ways to the world.

One hundred and fifty years after slavery was abolished, it is no longer imaginable that any human being would be enslaved. A hundred years after women gained the right to vote, it’s hard to imagine that anyone would have denied that right to half the population. That’s the kind of change that is needed to solve the climate crisis. We need to create a world in which it would be unimaginable for powerful corporations to lie and profit while spewing destructive chemicals into the atmosphere.

Secretary General Guterres said that we have opened the gates of hell. That’s a metaphor with religious resonance. It points toward the need for a spiritual solution to the climate crisis. To close the gates of hell, we need structural change, but also moral transformation. Lawsuits will help. But in the long run we need to change the way we think about profit, greed, power, and truth. In short, we need to rethink what we value, and we need to re-imagine the world we hope to leave to our grandchildren.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article279653924.html#storylink=cpy