Measuring Morality - files.meetup.com Morality... · This talk will cover: 1. Where do morals...

transcript

Measuring Morality

Can science be used

to evaluate ethical decisions?

ianrbryce@gmail.com

February 2015

First presented 4 November 2012 1

This talk will cover:

1. Where do morals (ethics) come from?

2. The prior art – attempts to quantify morals

3. Constructing our own morality

4. Measuring morality

5. The new methodology

6. Examples of use

myself:

aerospace

engineer

Methodologies to

analyze complex

events

Retirement.

Turned to social sciences

Human behaviour

How hard can it be?

Its not rocket science!

Part 1. Where do morals

come from?

1. Where do morals come from?

(a) In the tribal culture

Prophets Holy books

The People 6

Material

Spiritual realm

(b) But a Problem has been revealed

by travel and communication

Where do morals come from?

(c) Enlightenment 1650+ Inspired by the new scientific findings

Spiritual realm

Empty?

Material realm

Everything

What possible

origin of morals

can we fit into

(d) Post-Enlightenment thinkers

reject the supernatural

look to nature

use introspection

Duty for duty’s sake - Kant

Its good to do good – Holyoake?

We hold these truths to be self-evident - Declaration of Independence

- illustrates the failure of introspection…

Spiritual realm

Material realm

People

believe

its good

decisions 11

Like a self-

licking ice

cream!

(e) Modern science (evolution and

neuroscience) says:

One generation Next generation

Packages of DNA

passed from parents

Packages of behaviour

passed from parents

and community

characteristics

(physical and

social) are

propagated

through time

This behaviour can

be described as

“built-in”, instinct,

or intuition

Material realm

(e) Modern science

Add interactions with others

Packages of DNA

passed from parents

and community

characteristics

(physical and

social) are

propagated

through time Others in tribe

Material realm

(e) Modern science:

Now add a new source of behaviour

Packages of DNA

passed from parents

and community

characteristics

(physical and

social) are

propagated

through time

Scientific

knowledge and

analysis

Others in tribe

Modern science has answered that.

Briefly: Evolution! Which means:

Variation plus survival of the fittest

• Applies to physical

characteristics and also

behaviour

• For humans and other

animals

Part 2. The prior art –

attempts to quantify

morals

Part 2. The prior art – attempts to quantify morals

(a) Peter Singer - Utilitarianism

• The main proponent of utilitarianism

• “Practical Ethics” considers many ethical problems

• Finds the consequences

• Evaluates by qualitative comparison

• Laments the lack of a quantitative measure

Philipa Foot, Peter Singer and others – Trolleyology

Uses a basic form of Utilitarianism, which simply counts the lives saved or lost by moral decisions.

Example: A runaway trolley is going to enter track A, where it will kill 5 workmen.

You have the option to:

Leave it alone,

Or: pull a lever, to steer it onto track B, where it will kill only 1 workman.

What should you do?

Example: trolleyology

Under utilitarianism, killing 1 person is a better course of action than killing 5.

So you should pull the lever.

There is a website where viewers are invited to give the action they would take, and explain why.

Example: trolleyology

Many people are uneasy about that. Why?

There are several problems with utilitarianism.

• Only the immediate consequences are easily included.

• A “murder” is given equal value to an accidental death, whereas it would have more severe consequences.

• The outcome is assumed certain – rarely the case.

Our new method must avoid these problems.

Example: The unwilling organ donor

In a hospital, a surgeon sees:

• A man needing a liver transplant.

• A man needing a lung transplant.

• A man needing a heart transplant.

Each will die if they don’t get their organ immediately.

In a hospital, a surgeon sees:

• A man needing a liver transplant.

• A man needing a lung transplant.

• A man needing a heart transplant.

Each will die if they don’t get their organ immediately.

The surgeon sees a healthy person (a hospital cleaner) passing by.

He evaluated two courses of action:

A: doing nothing

B: seizing the passing cleaner and transplanting his liver to patient 1, lungs to patient 2, and heart to patient 3.

B saves 3 people for the cost of 1.

Utilitarianism seems to say that B is the best course of action.

BUT the online surveys show that most people would NOT do it.

This is much quoted by the critics of utilitarianism: the tool is no good if it does not match what normal people would do.

I have discussed this problem with Singer.

He said “I am working on that”.

Extended Consequences

Again we need an extension to the method, where ALL consequences are included. (Common sense…)

Once word gets out, no cleaners will come to the hospital! Its operations will collapse. Hundreds will die.

Thus option B is much worse than option A.

We need to include ALL significant consequences. This makes the analysis a bit longer.

continued

Example: trolleyology Part 2. The prior art – attempts to quantify morals

(b) EuroQoL EQ-5D

• Mainly for hospital patients

• Measures their health

• Includes a scale from 0 (equal to being

dead) to 100 (best imaginable heath)

(b) EuroQoL EQ-5D

• A serious condition such as being in a

wheelchair or on dialysis might give a

rating of 50% say (can be estimated in

various ways).

(c) Quality-adjusted Life Years -

Estimates the quality and quantity of life

Most used in the presence of serious injuries or end-of-

life diseases

An outlook of 4 years with perfect health would be worth

4 QALY

Paraplegia (wheelchair) or serious disease lowers the

quality of life. If 50%, then an outlook of 4 years would

give a QALY of 2.

Thus, medical and financial resources can be allocated

for maximim QALYs! 32

(d) Workplace injury compensation

Ref: WORKCOVER GUIDES FOR THE EVALUATION OF

PERMANENT IMPAIRMENT (NSW)

For example, loss of penis or loss of fertility rates between 16% and

35% WPI. Depends on age.

WPI = Whole Person Impairment. It does not translate directly to a

monetary sum but actual payouts suggest one WPI is worth $200-

400,000.

Loss of hearing is a maximum of 50% WPI.

Psychiatric damage includes scales for: self care and personal

hygiene, social and recreational activities, relationships etc. The

worst case being 100%WPI.

Courts also award damages for pain and suffering, but there is no

clear guideline. 33

(e) Cost/benefit of vaccination

A recent booklet form the Australian Government says:

Cost-effectiveness of community immunisation programs is

determined by measuring the benefits – in terms of cost and quality

of life – that result from preventing illness, disability and death, and

comparing them with the costs of vaccine production and delivery to

the population. Sounds promising!

But it goes on to say:

A striking example is the benefits of polio vaccination. In the first six

years after introduction of the vaccine, it was calculated that more

than 150,000 cases of paralytic polio and 12,500 deaths were

prevented worldwide. This represented a saving of more than US$30

billion annually in 1999 dollars [ref 72].

(e) Cost/benefit of vaccination

Ref 72 says that for paralytic polio [USA], vaccination has averted a

loss of 6.3B of income, and saved hospital costs of $2B pa “not to

mention the other medical care costs and human suffering”.

So they would like a means of quantifying pain and suffering, but do

not have one. They only know how to calculate in dollar terms.

This emphasizes the need for a new methodology.

Part 3. Constructing our

own morality

Part 3. Constructing our own morality

Science has clearly established that morals are

developed by groups of humans or animals

As Darwin said, ethics evolved along with all behaviour

There is no outside source of morality.

(For more detailed evidence, refer to my earlier talk on

Mind).

This leaves groups of humans free to explore new

structures for morality.

In particular, we can apply scientific knowledge and

methods.

You can’t derive an “ought” (morality)

purely from an “is” (knowledge of the physical world).

So science alone is not enough. We need inputs from

intuition as well as from science.

Ideas implanted by genes and memes (or just made

up) are not amenable to justification by science.

So in a logical argument they must be identified as

“premises” or “assumptions.

We will elevate them to “principles”.

(a) One principle at a time

Intuition

(genes &

memes)

Science

(evidence &

reason)

Morality

(decision

making)

science Decision 1

Principle 1

science Decision 2

Principle 2

science Decision 3

Principle 3

(a) One principle at a time

Intuition

(genes &

memes)

Science

(evidence &

reason)

Morality

(decision

making)

science Decision 1

Principle 1

science Decision 2

science Decision 3

(b) Only one principle

Since we are allowed only one principle, what will

suffice?

“Welfare of sentient beings”

Four words

Rationale: Most common threads in moral systems

include the “golden rule” and concern for others

Why? Because they are aware, or conscious, and capable of experiencing pleasure and pain

Their welfare is important to us.

Part 4.

Measuring Morality

Part 4. Measuring Morality

Based on “welfare of sentient

beings”.

We need to more closely define

“welfare” and “sentient”.

“Welfare of sentient beings”

health

Brain function

Welfare Sentience

Family

Friends

shelter

Combine to

Quality of Life 44

Measuring Morality

flowchart sheet 1

Welfare

-1 to +1

Sentience

0 to 1 Quality of Life

-1 to +1 X

Actual P&P experienced

at any given moment

Capacity to experience Pleasure & Pain at any given

moment, ie brain function

The physical environment, including health, food, shelter, relationships,

planning

One person’s Quality of Lifetime

-1 to +1

Birth to death QoL averaged over whole lifetime, for that

individual

Integrate over lifetime (area under the curve)

Measuring Morality

flowchart sheet 2

Calculate Quality of

Lifetime (QoLT) for

each person affected

(sheet 1)

Identify options:

a simple Baseline =

case A,

Option B,

Option C etc

Total QoLT for that option

Compare the merit of all options!

Sum over all people affected

Subtract the baseline =

the merit of that option

Measuring Morality sheet 3

- Put data in a table – will look like this:

Case ->

Person affected

A. Baseline

(no illness)

B. Kept on

Life support

C. Timely

Termination

Mother 1.0 0.7 0.7

Son 1.0 0.8 0.9

Daughter 1.0 0.8 0.9

Reallocated

resources

0 -0.2 0

Total QoLT of that

option

(effective lives)

3.0 2.1 2.5

The Merit of each

option

0 (Baseline) -0.9 -0.5

The Merit of each option is measured in “effective lives”.

Compared to the “baseline” where there is no illness:

Option A has a merit of -0.9 lives – obviously a bad outcome

Option B has a merit of -0.5 lives – the harm has been lessened.

The methodology in detail.

Step 1: Sentience

Meaning (in this context):

• The capacity of a person to experience P&P (given an external environment).

• Related to the functioning of the brain, ie the mind

• Varies through a normal life

(a) Sentience in humans

Sentience - the capacity for Pleasure & Pain

(brain function)

– variation throughout a normal life

Sentience

Conception

Sentience in humans -

degradations

Many things can degrade the sentience of a person

• Sleep

• Alcohol & drug use

• Anesthetic

• Brain injury

• Induced coma

• Mental illness

• Dementia

Awareness or sentience can be estimated qualitatively by knowing the person,

And quantitatively by technical means (later). 50

Sentience - degradations

Sentience

Vegetative state Brain injury

Partial recovery

Estimation of sentience by neuroscience:

(a) overall

Knowledge of brain function relates sentience

(crudely) to several factors:

Measured brain activity (EEG)

Chronological development of nervous system

Brain size (absolute or relative to body size)

Number of neurons and their organization

Number of axons (connections between neurons)

Presence of brain stem, limbic brain and cortex, which all play a part in awareness

Evolutionary development

Consciousness (further investigation required)

(b) Sentience in extant animals

The techniques of slide 1 enables us to estimate a scale, such as:

• Humans

• Chimps & bonobos

• Other apes

• Monkeys

• Dolphins

• Whales

• Dogs

• Cats mice

• Worms

• Bacteria

There is still much to learn!

+1 (full human sentience)

0 (unconscious)

For more detail of pain in animals,

see Advanced Topics at end.

(c) Sentience in impaired

humans Emergency responders routinely measure

consciousness of victims (accident, stroke etc)

Anesthetists do during and after surgery, so they can adjust the dose of anesthetic. They use:

Pin prick

auditory-evoked potentials

Arousal

Questioning during

Memory (by questioning afterwards)

All this forms a coherent picture of sentience in humans.

Example of a scientific paper: Consciousness monitoring: A standard of the future?

(d) Sentience through the evolutionary chain We can roughly estimate the sentience

of our ancestors through:

• behaviour revealed by archeology

• Brain size and features from fossils.

This enables us to estimate a scale:

• Mammals

• Primates

• Monkeys

• Homo habilis

• Homo erectus

• Australopithicus

• Recently extinct homo sapiens (neanderthal, Flores “hobbit”)

• Current humans

(e) Sentience in aliens

• Given that human sentience has steadily advanced through evolution…

• It is likely that aliens will be much more evolved

• And possibly more sentient!

Sep 2: Welfare

This means the obvious factors affecting

“pleasure and pain” and all other measures

of happiness.

What is included in

“welfare”? #1 Obviously the basic physical factors:

• Food

• Water

• Shelter

• Environment

• Health

And basic freedoms from:

• Violence

• Oppression

• Freedom of speech 59

What is included in

“welfare”? #2 Our lives also rely on many social structures, such as:

• learning from the responses of others to our actions,

• establishing friendships where helpful actions are likely to be repaid,

• making plans for the future,

• enjoying success,

• and regretting failure.

These capabilities add to our pleasure and pain, and hence to the value

we place on life.

Welfare – can be put on a scale:

food, water

shelter

disease

torture

Family relationships

Fulfillment of wishes

friend relationships

stress

Ability to plan

health

The previous slide is an Objective

List method.

As opposed to a Hedonism method:

every hour, self report your

happiness. Unreliable.

There are many tried and true

measures of happiness, which

relate closely to welfare:

eg Gross national happiness

Examples of “Sentience”

and “Welfare”

from our dogs

Observing human welfare is difficult, because

(a) we are intimately part of it, and

(b) the life cycle is too long!

Fortunately, I am part of a dog business, where the

things happen much faster. I have observed many

cradle-to-grave life cycles involving many ups and

downs.

Examples from the canine life cycle

Pup is born - Rapid rise in sentience as the senses become

active, and bond formed with the mother 65

Mating - certainly a peak in Welfare 66

Dog is blind, but can still play (I taught them tug of war).

Welfare reduced, but still positive 67

Injury - a dip in Welfare and hence Quality of Life

Eventually becomes negative - the dog is put to sleep 68

Step 3: Quality of Life

Sentience

welfare

examples

“normal”

human life

Sentience

Welfare

Quality of

Integrate for

lifetime:

= one “normal”

human life

Sentience

Welfare

Quality of

Q1: How will the graphs look

for Mother?

Answer: B and C are the

same – because Mother has

no brain function.

See July 14 SA pres

Example 2: Mother has a

stroke and is vegetative.

Compare:

A: a normal life for Mother

(reference) 1.0

B: leave her on life support 0.7

C: euthanasia 0.7

Sentience

Welfare

Quality of

Q: How will the graphs look

for her (younger) relatives?

A: They recover from the

event sooner, and are able

to resume their lives.

A: No illness

B: leave her on life support

C: euthanasia

Recovery from C: Mother’s

assisted termination

Recovery from B: Mother’s

natural death

Sentience

Welfare

Quality of

We can see already that

euthanasia is the better

option (other things being

equal).

Now for the effect on

her son and daughter

A: No illness

B: leave her on life

support

C: euthanasia

Recovery from Mother’s

natural death

Where are we up to?

Welfare

-1 to +1

Sentience

-1 to +1

Quality of Lifetime

-1 to +1

Sum over

all people

affected

Step 4: Quality of Lifetime

Area under each curve

for each person

Sentience

Welfare

Quality of

For Mother

Normal life = 1.0 by definition

With stroke - Area ~ 70% of a

normal life

Quality for Lifetime = 0.7

(both cases B and C)

Legend (3 options)

A: a normal life (reference)

C: euthanasia

(same graph)

Sentience

Welfare

Quality of

For relatives

B: area = 0.8 of normal

C: area = 0.9 of normal

natural death

Legend (3 options)

A: a normal life (reference)

C: euthanasia

(same graph)

Where are we up to?

Welfare

-1 to +1

Sentience

-1 to +1

Quality of Lifetime

-1 to +1

over all

people 78

Thus: • Each human’s total life experience is

represented by a number

• 1.0 = a “normal” life, dominated by pleasure and happiness

• Lower sentience will reduce the figure

• Poorer health or relationships will also reduce the figure

• 0.5 = half as valuable

• 0 = neutral (same value as being dead)

• Negative = a life with more pain than pleasure (These measures are subjective but comparable)

One more consequence…

• If Mother is kept on life support for say 5

• This will cost the public health system

many resources - perhaps $500,000

• These resources could be used in the

hospital to benefit many other patients

• Say 0.2 effective lives

Step 5: Sum over all affected

Add up the equivalent lives for all people

involved

Where are we up

Lifetime (QoLT) for

(sheet 1)

Identify options:

a simple Baseline =

case A,

Option B,

Option C etc

Put data in a table

Case ->

Person affected

A. Baseline

(no illness)

B. Kept on

Life support

C. Timely

Termination

Mother 1.0 0.7 0.7

Son 1.0 0.8 0.9

Reallocated

resources

0 -0.2 0

Total QoLT of that

option

(effective lives)

3.0 2.1 2.5

The Merit of each

option

0 (Baseline) -0.9 -0.5

Where are we up

Lifetime (QoLT) for

(sheet 1)

Identify options:

a simple Baseline =

case A,

Option B,

Option C etc

Put data in a table

Case ->

Person affected

A. Baseline

(no illness)

B. Kept on

Life support

C. Timely

Termination

Mother 1.0 0.7 0.7

Son 1.0 0.8 0.9

Reallocated

resources

0 -0.2 0

Total QoLT of that

option

(effective lives)

3.0 2.1 2.5

The Merit of each

option

0 (Baseline) -0.9 -0.5

Compared to the “baseline” where there is no illness:

Option B has a merit of -0.9 lives – obviously a bad outcome

Option C has a merit of -0.5 lives – the harm has been lessened.

Put data in a table

Case ->

Person affected

A. Baseline

(no illness)

B. Kept on

Life support

C. Timely

Termination

Mother 1.0 0.7 0.7

Son 1.0 0.8 0.9

Reallocated

resources

0 -0.2 0

Total QoLT of that

option

(effective lives)

3.0 2.1 2.5

The Merit of each

option

0 (Baseline) -0.9 -0.5

It can vary widely.

For selecting a birthday present for a loved one, it may be 0.0001.

For developing a new vaccine, it may be 1,000,000. 86

“But where are my Principles???”

Good Moral Principles – when promulgated

in society, lead to good consequences –

Peter Singer

Moral rules – when enforced by an authority,

lead to good consequences.

So ultimately, it all comes down to

consequences! 87

Summary

• We have proposed a methodology for measuring the

values of moral decisions

• It takes into account similar factors as any

professional ethics committee – eg the effects on a

persons mental capacity, health, and prospect for

improvement

• It also measures the effect on relatives and friends

• The cost to the community of expensive interventions

is also considered

• These improvements are intended to overcome the

many objections to basic utilitarianism.

Conclusions

• Science has shown the real origins of morals and how they are propagated

• Thus we are free to invent our own morality

• I have proposed a morality based on the welfare of sentient beings

• And a means of measuring it

• Ultimately this might provide a means of comparing the consequences of choices

• And hence of identifying good and bad choices.

Some more detailed examples

Sentience

Welfare

Quality of

How will the graphs look for

Uncle?

Areas (QoLT)

A: 0.5

B: 0.6

Example #2: Uncle has

terminal cancer.

He is still alert.

But he is in pain

and wants to die.

Compare

A: leave him on life support

B: euthanasia

Example #3:

brain damage

at mid life

Sentience

steps down

Sentience

Welfare

Quality of

Integrate

for lifetime:

Example #4:

a child in a

dysfunctional

environment,

eg abusive family.

Sentience remains the

The welfare index is

lowered.

Sentience

(same)

Wefare

(lowered)

Quality of

(lowered)

Integrate for

lifetime:

Example #5: Car

accident, causing

quadriplegia in

adolescence Assume there is insufficient care

available for a dignified life –

unlike Christopher Reeve.

Welfare could be negative.

If so, Quality of Life becomes negative.

Integrate for lifetime:

Would need to consider: what the

person wanted, what relatives wanted,

and whether the situation might change

over the next 50 years.

Welfare

Quality of

Sentience

Some comments - moral

• Common objections:

• “How can anyone put figures to a persons life?”

• “You are playing god”

• BUT: in every hospital, every day, life and death

decisions are being made

• There are limited resources available to improve

health outcomes

• Doctors and administrators take into account all the

same factors as we have mentioned here

• All we have done is to add a methodology.

Some comments - technical

• “Other things remaining equal”

assumption

• Putting figures to cases is subjective…

• But often the comparison of two options

is “robust”

• Same outcome regardless of figures.

Advanced Topics

Advanced Topic #1:

Devaluation by Social Distance

So far, the basic methodology values all people

equally. Is this realistic?

Try “gut feeling”: several examples

Example 1: Trolleyology – 1 person vs 3.

Example 2: Asylum seeker rescue

Example 3: The $300 shoes (Peter Singer)

Advanced Topic #1:

Example 1A:

Trolleyology – 1

person vs 2.

Most people say

they would pull the

lever, killing one

person instead of

Advanced Topic #1:

Example 1A:

Trolleyology – 1 person

Example 1B: the one

person is your much

loved son or daughter!

Most people would NOT

pull the lever.

NOT all people are

equal.

Advanced Topic #1:

Example 2 : Asylum seeker rescue, OR Australian yacht in trouble.

Have 24 hours, can only rescue ONE.

Result: most would rescue our OWN COUNTRYMEN first.

All nationalities! Make the same decision!

Advanced Topic #1:

Include a factor to

dilute concern for

people not closely

related.

Corresponds to

genetic distance,

which can be

measured or

calculated.

Note: The figures reflect commonality

of genes…except in the case of the

spouse who is less closely related

BUT critical in bringing up the

children. 103

person factor

self 1.0

spouse (0.7?)

Sons and daughters 0.5

Cousins, Nieces etc 0.25

Rest of tribe or clan 0.1

Rest of state 0.01

Rest of country 0.001

Rest of world 0.0001

Advanced Topic #1:

Example 3: the pair of shoes

3A: You see a drowning child on your local park…

Case ->

Person affected

Do nothing Save the

QoLT to you 0 -0.0003 (loss

of shoes)

QoLT to the child -1.0 (death) 0

The Merit of each

option

-1.0 -.0003

We would do

this - agrees

Assume:

1 life = $1million

Pair of shoes $300

= 0.0003 lives.

Advanced Topic #1:

Example 3B: You have $300 to spare, and you consider several

options… Case ->

Person affected

Buy shoes Give to an

African

charity

QoLT to you 0 -0.0003

(keep using

old shoes)

QoLT to an African

0 (miserable

1.0 (convert

one life to

decent

welfare)

The Merit of each

option

0 +0.9997

Yet we do

this every

day! Why?

Assume:

$300 will provide

water, food and

education to an African

child.

We routinely buy

shoes instead of giving

to charity… has the

methodology failed?

Advanced Topic #1:

Example 3B: You have $300 to spare, and you consider several

options… Case ->

Person affected

Buy shoes Give to an

African

charity

QoLT to you 0 x 1 -0.0003 x 1

(keep using

old shoes)

QoLT to an African

0 (miserable

1.0 x 0.0001

(African life is

devalued)

= +0.0001

The Merit of each

option

0 -0.0002

This is now

the higher

Introduce Devaluation

by social distance.

You care less about a

remote person you

have never seen –

1/10000

The methodology

again agrees with our

actual choices!

Advanced Topic #1:

person factor

self 1.0

spouse (0.7?)

Rest of state 0.01

We see that putting a

devaluation factor can make

the methodology match what

we actually practice.

Varying that factor until the

prediction matches fact, is a

social measurement tool!

Advanced Topic #1:

person factor

self 1.0

spouse (0.7?)

Rest of state 0.01

However, two different

people using the

Methodology, will now get

different results and reach

different moral decisions!

If we want to avoid conflict

and wars, we need a

universal tool.

We need minimise this

devaluation, in other words,

full equality of all humans.

Advanced Topic #2:

Animal sentience and pain We have shown animals as having lower sentience than

humans.

How do we estimate pain suffered by animals (both

farmed and in the wild)?

1. Animal capabilities such as agility, hearing, sight,

problem solving, social relations, language etc can be

observed and compared to humans.

2. Comparing animal vs human brains shows the

relative size of the various parts. This can be linked to

observed behaviour and skills.

Advanced Topic #2:

Animal

sentience

and pain

3. Fossils of brain

cases reveal the

different parts of the

brain in extinct

primates. This

illuminates the

development of skills

during evolution.

Advanced Topic #2:

Animal sentience and pain

4. There are many measures of neural complexity: Chronological development of nervous system

Brain size (absolute or relative to body size)

Number of neurons and their organization

Number of axons (connections between neurons)

Presence of brain stem, limbic brain and cortex, which all play a part in awareness

Evolutionary development

Consciousness (further investigation required)

Advanced Topic #2:

5. Stress (general meaning) in animals in the short term

can be measured by many physiological parameters,

including blood cortisone, hormones, neurotransmitters,

respiration, heart rate.

6. Stress can also be detected by changes in behaviour

as regards feeding, mating, and nesting.

7. Stress and welfare in the long term can be estimated

by reproductive success.

Advanced Topic #2:

8. Studies with rats running over electrified grids (to obtain drugs

which they enjoy) suggest they are more willing to do so than

humans.

9. We know that pain evolved as a warning to avoid further damage

to the body. There is no reason for this to be more pronounced in

animals than in humans.

10. Ethics committees of research laboratories, farming industries etc

make daily decisions on whether to allow (or modify) experiments

and treatment of animals. Clearly they have a unified concept of what

animals experience.

The measures of neural complexity, and the above numbered points, form a coherent picture of human and animal brain functions.

Scientists are confident that such factors correlate with sentience, and hence an ability to suffer from pain.

Advanced Topic #3:

Extended Consequences

Extended consequences to include stigma attached to the person

doing the act (eg feeling of guilt, bad reaction of society)

TROLLEYOLOGY EXAMPLE

The runaway trolley is going to enter track A, where it will kill 3 workmen

You have the option to steer it onto track B, where it will kill only 1 workman.

Taking the no-trolley case as a reference, each person killed (at say half way through their life) is worth -0.5

The devastating effect on friends and relatives is worth perhaps another -0.5

Giving a total of -1.0 equivalent life per workman killed

Thus option A is worth -3.0 and option B is worth -1.0

So again option B is better.

Advanced Topic #3:

Extended Consequences BUT…

There is another consequence: If I deliberately pull the lever to steer the trolley, I might be plagued with remorse and doubt for the rest of my life.

I might be charged with a crime.

The value of my life might reduce from 1.0 to 0.5

And my family will also suffer from my depression

Thus the total consequences might NOT favor pulling the lever.

This extended form of utilitarianism which I propose, gives results more in accordance with people’s intuitive decisions, as recorded on the Foote – Singer trolleyology tests.

A further improvement is given by the next advanced topic - Splitting outcomes with probabilities.

Advanced Topic #4:

Splitting outcomes with

probabilities Sometimes the outcome of a

decision contains major uncertainty.

Example: major surgery such as

heart bypass. There may be 85%

chance of being successful, and

15% chance of death in the

operation.

The “choose surgery” stream is split

for the 2 outcomes, and then

recombined.

(Complete Quality calculation not

shown).

Choose

surgery

Choose surgery

Outcome - Success Death

Probability - 80% 20%

expectancy

3 years 7 years 0 years

Weighted

expectancy

3 0.80*7 + 0.20*0

Advanced Topic #4:

Splitting outcomes with

probabilities

Return to a Trolleyology scenario.

One objection is that in real life, we

can never be certain of an outcome.

For example, if we do nothing, the

trolley on track A might jump the

tracks and kill no-one. Also, the

workmen might hear it coming and

get off the track themselves.

When we split the outcomes in this

way, the 2 deaths (previously taken

as certain) will be diluted. The

“expected value” here is 0.9 and this

now becomes the preferable

outcome.

Take no action Pull the

Outcome Trolley

continues

on track

kills 2

workmen

Trolley

track OR

Workmen

jump clear

Trolley is

diverted to

track B and

kills 1

workman

Probabilit

45% 55% 100%

No. of

Deaths

Recombin

e case A

0.45*2 + 0.55*0

Advanced Topic #5:

Population issues

What should be our population policy?

Some societies have limited their fecundity to below

replacement (eg Sweden, Japan, Australia).

Some ethnic or social groups are still having large families.

The “right to have children” is seen as a basic human right,

and untouchable.

Given the planet’s limited resources, what are the likely

outcomes of these two courses?

Advanced Topic #5:

Population issues

Measuring Morality

flowchart sheet 1

Welfare

-1 to +1

Sentience

-1 to +1 X

Actual P&P experienced

at any given moment

Capacity to experience Pleasure & Pain at any given

moment, ie brain function

The physical environment, including health, food, shelter, relationships,

planning

One person’s Quality of Lifetime

-1 to +1

Birth to death QoL averaged over whole lifetime, for that

individual

Integrate over lifetime (area under the curve)

Advanced Topic #5:

Population issues

How to apply this methodology?

“If all the world were like Sweden”

“If all the world were like Bangla Desh”

The real world is a mixture.

Advanced Topic #5:

Population issues

“If all the

world were

like Sweden”.

Population

about 1

billion, and

stable.

Almost

sustainable.

Quality of life

Advanced Topic #5:

Population issues “If all the world

were like

Bangladesh”

About 20 billion

people now

Quality of life: very

bad, possibly 0.0

(hardly worth living)

Resources being

depleted rapidly

Increased disease,

famine, starvation,

warfare

Future quality of

life: goes very

negative, billions

die of starvation

Advanced Topic #6:

Justice

Purpose of justice

Our core paradigm: “Welfare of sentient beings”

Basis for criminal justice – what factors can affect this welfare?

• “He deserves to suffer” – retributive justice

• “He should rot in hell”

• Physically prevent him doing it again – preventive justice

• Reform his behaviour

• Deter others from doing it

A topic for another day!

Measuring Morality - files.meetup.com Morality... · This talk will cover: 1. Where do morals...

Documents