Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Ethics, Privacy, if and only if, FEEDBACK LOOP - Coggle Diagram

- - - - a reason for believing or not believing something
    - - use of reason to decide how to act
      - example: categorical imperative
      - Moral Reasons
        
        based on relevant moral values
        
        Hume: reason as a slave to the passions - moral value dependent on moral sentiment
        
        Kant: reason as transcendental grounds for value
      - Non-Moral Reasons
        "Prudential Reasons"
        
        self-regarding / self-interested
        
        aimed at happiness
        
        Kant: pursuit of happiness = antiethical to demands of morality
        
        distinguishing between moral & non-moral reasoning:
        based on motivation
  - - - non-moral facts
        
        empirical state of affairs
        
        assumed to be objectively given
        
        Factual disagreement is assumed to be resolvable
      - includes disagreements
    - - Moral facts
        "The moral value is out there"
        
        concerns the externally given moral value of
        
        actions
        
        outcomes
        
        characters
        
        state of affairs
      - Moral attitudes
        "The moral value is in us"
        
        Concerns internal moral responses to
        
        actions
        
        outcomes
        
        characters
        
        states of affait
        
        non-cognitivists:
        these determine the moral value of these states of affairs for us
        
        there can be disagreements that cannot be resolved
        
        moral realists:
        moral attitudes can be correct or incorrect depending whether they are approproate to the moral facts
  - - - individually
      - interpersonal
    - - between persons
        
        ground for ethical disagreement
      - within oneself
        
        cognitive dissonance of not remedied
    - - result of emotional responses and social inculcation (Hume, Haidt)
        challenges:
        high-virtue-theoretic cost
        requires antecedent acceptance of controversial assumptions
      - originate from God-given conscience (Aquinas)
        challenges:
        difficulty in poving the existence of moral facts
      - responses to perception of moral knowledge in form of moral facts (McGrath)
        challenge:
        moral intuitions in oppositions to societal norms - ancient abolitionists
      - result of special facy of intuition (Harman)
        seemingly an ad hoc solution
  - - - reasoning is influenced by:
        
        Reminders if physical cleanliness
        
        The taste of recent eaten food
        
        The race of those involved
- - - - = Abscence of pain
        
        depending on the reference point
      - Abstaying from unneccessary desires
      - ATARAXIA
        
        = freedom from worry & inner tranquility
      - by which way?
        
        by philosophical contemplation
        
        with yourself & others
        
        being content with simple things
        
        Questions to ask:
        
        Which pleasures are really pleasurable?
        
        which pains do we need to experience pleasure?
      - pleasure of philosophy
        
        leading to wisdom over oneself (greatest pleasure)
  - - - Psychological States
        
        Happiness
        
        Other States
        
        Excitement
        
        liking
        
        ....
      - Other Goods
        
        friendship
        
        success
        
        health
        
        ....
      - Hedonism
        Desire-fulfillment
        Authentic happiness
        Eudaimonism
        List Theories
  - - - Nicomachean Ethics
        
        happiness = end of an action
        
        "human good turns out to be activity of soul in conformity with virtue"
        
        For one swallow does not make a summer, nor does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not make a man blessed and happy.“
        
        Happiness is nothing to be reached but to worked on reaching ( telos of every human = Eudiamonia)
  - - - What is one able to control?
        
        controllable
        
        judgement
        
        impulse
        
        desires
        
        intentions
        
        uncontrollable
        
        everything else
        
        others opinions
        
        your body
        
        health
        
        illness
        
        reputation
        
        material possessions
        
        wealth
        
        poverty
      - Man is affected not by events but by the view he takes of them. We should always be asking ourselves: Is this something that is, or is not, in my control? The essence of philosophy is that we should live so that our happiness depends as little as possible on external causes. (Epictetus)
    - - live in agreement with nature
      - follow smooth & undisturbed life
      - end goal: extend realm
        of control over externalities
    - - "Dull-Life"
      - External Aspects will
        have influences on One
    - - Following Guidelines
    - - Proper Function = premise
        world is planned in the best possible way
        humans need to find & enact their role to be happy
      - Goal:
        living in agreement with nature
        
        Oikesis
        == appropriation, affiliation, affinity:
        making something one's own
    - - Virtue
        
        virtue alone is good
        
        vice is bad
      - External Goods
        
        beyond our control
        
        not relevant
        neutral
      - Indifferents
        
        health
        
        illness
        
        wealth
        
        poverty
        
        axia = non-moral value
        accord with nature & have a non-moral value
        
        is to be taken
      - Passions
        to be extinct
        
        pain
        
        pleasure
        
        fear
        
        desire
  - - - essence of what
        people are striving for
    - - well being as a system in which
        situational happiness might occur
  - - - Desire Satisfaction Theory
        how are things going?
        -> getting what you want is all that counts
        
        Present
        
        desires one currently has
        
        Informed
        
        adequatly informed desires only
        
        Objections
        
        if you do not always have the choice
        
        Is satisfaction of desires what society needs?
        
        What about changing desires?
        
        Does each satisfied desire lead to a happy life?
        
        addiction
        
        How do a short & happy vs long & dull life compare?
        
        Grass-Counter
        All I want is to count the blades of grass, all day, every day.
        => Sometimes, it is bad for a person to get what he wants
        
        Unrestricted Desire Satisfaction
        best life == all desires satisfied
        
        if you wish for something to happen & it happens without your knowledge?
        
        -> Not plausible:
        event of unknown desire-satisfaction finds it's end
        
        Success Theory
        only satisfaction of your desires about yourself count
        Objection:
        
        Good parenting & the unknown dissatisfaction of your children with your parenting
        -> theory => makes life worse
        -> unplausible
        
        Ideal
        
        desires that fit some objective criteria only
      - Mental State Theory / Hedonism
        how are you feeling?
        → happiness is all that counts
        
        balance pleasures over pain
        
        Objections
        
        Happy Slaves
        (Amartya Sen)
        
        his real interests are undermined by slavery
        
        Restricting range of activities diminishes one's capabilities
        
        Capabilities are crucial for well-being
        //Critique from an objectivity-standpoint
        
        Experience Machine
        (Robert Nozick)
        
        a machine that would give you any experience you desired without knowledge about this artificiality
        
        wanting to do things > having experience of done them
        
        we want to be certain people → plugging in ^= form of suicide
        
        we do not want to be limited to human-created reality
        
        we want to make a difference in the world
        
        Opinion Holders
        
        Bentham (ACT Utilitarianism)
        
        Mill (RULE Utilitarianism)
        
        Sidgwick
        
        Hedonistic Accounts
        
        Narrow Hedonism
        Bentham (ACT)
        
        happiness = distinctive homogenous mental state
        
        the more pleasure → the more well-being
        
        Objection:
        different pleasures have different qualitative levels
        → preferences matter
        
        Preference Hedonism
        Mill (RULE)
        
        "high" & "low" pleasures
        
        more pleasurable experiences are more preferable
        
        follow what do you want most
    - - Capability Approach
        (Martha Nussbaum)
        10 capaibilities for a good life
        
        Life
        
        Bodily Health
        
        Bodily Integrity
        
        Senses, imagination, thought
        
        Emotions
        
        Practical Reason
        
        Affiliation
        
        Other Species
        
        Play
        
        Control Over One's Environment
        
        // liberal/democratic approach
      - Objections
        
        How to define what is part of a list
        
        What if yomeone does not want to to be morally virtuous, or acquire knowledge, or recognize beauty? -> might have but regret these things -> unhappy by definition
        
        What about subjectivity?
        
        can we be wrong about personal well-being?
        
        How can one by themselves determine what is objectively good for us or others?
        
        Can the list be complete?
        
        // Is the list different for each society?
        
        How then compare overall happiness?
        
        Is there a right for unhappiness?
      - Examples:
        
        Chinese Social Credit System
  - - - Different Measures for different types of happiness
      - Methods of Measurement
        
        Indirect
        
        access to basic resources
        
        income
        
        living conditions
        
        health status
        
        family status
        
        Direct
        
        personal assessment
        
        Satisfaction with Life Slace (Diener)
        
        Questions
        
        In most ways my life is close to my ideal.
        
        The conditions of my life are excellent.
        
        I am satisfied with my life.
        
        So far I have gotten the important things I want in life
        
        If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.
        
        Scale
        7 - Strongly agree
        6 - Agree
        5 - Slightly agree
        4 - Neither agree nor disagree
        3 - Slightly disagree
        2 - Disagree
        1 - Strongly disagree
        
        Combination
        
        physiology
        
        brain activity
      - Measurable Happiness / Well Being
        
        Negative Affects
        
        Satisfaction with life
        
        Correlation with
        
        emotional stability
        
        some personality traits
        
        other peoples reports //self fulfilling prophecy
        
        Positive affects
      - Influences on Happiness
        
        Money
        Easterlin Paradox
        
        becomiung happier by being richer than those you compare yourself with -> richer societies are not generally happer
        
        Being Social
        sharing positive & negative experiences increases pleasure & decreases pain
        
        Subjective experience of health
        
        Education & intelligence
        are only weakly linked to happiness
        
        Inter-Personal skills
    - - Health
      - Prosperity
        (means to an end)
      - Justice
      - Status
        (means to an end)
      - state of family & friends
      - state of society
    - - Mental life
      - achievements
      - What you care about
      - How life works out
- - - - Prescriptivism
        moral sentences are akin to commands
        "Murder is wrong" = "Do not murder!"
      - Expressivism/Emotivism
        moral sentences are expressions of (pro/con) attitudes towards actions
        "Murder is wrong" = "Murder! Boo!"
      - Advantages
        
        Explains the existence of seemingly incommensurable moral disagreement
        
        Avoids positing metaphysically peculiar entities – such as moral facts
      - Disadvantages
        
        Problematic for theoretical explanatory power
        
        Strongly counterintuitive
        
        if moral judgements == expressions of attitudes, how is moral reasoning possible?
  - - - Cognitivism Realist
        
        Naturalist
        Moral facts are natural facts
        
        Non-Naturalist
        moral facts are not natural facts
        
        Moral Objectivism
        there are universally true moral statements
        
        Realist Moral Relativism
        there are only context-dependently true moral statements
        //ACT Utilitarianism
      - Advantages
        
        explains categorical nature of moral judgements
        
        Provides clear explanation for the rationality of moral argument
      - Disadvantages
        
        Requires explanation for moral disagreement
        
        Requires a proof of existence of moral facts
- - - - Types
        
        Utilitarianism
        Goal: maximize utility across space & time (pleasure, happiness, ...)
        → Hedonism
        consequences for everyone → for as many
        Application: identify one's duty and act accordingly
        
        Moral Value
        Utility
        
        Principle of Conduct
        The Principle of Utility
        Act so you produce the greatest utility for the greatest amount
        
        Types of Utilitarianism
        
        ACT Utilitaianism
        
        Apply Principle of Utility directly as Acts
        
        Aims for greatest net utility
        
        Judge an act on its direct consequences alone
        
        Apply acts on a case by case basis
        
        Jeremy Bentham
        
        hedonistic utilitarianist
        
        Hedonistic calculus
        
        1 more item...
        
        consider consequences of all possible actions
        
        decide between options
        
        Objection:
        
        collecting all actions
        
        uncertainty over the results of each action - "Prediction Problem"
        
        making one suffer intentionally to create a greater good for others
        
        breaking promise or rule to obtain greater good?
        
        This lost in trust of decision makers (judges, doctors, politicians, ...) will make everybody loose trust in the in promise makers & the concept of promises falls apart
        
        RULE Utilitarianism
        
        The correctness of a rule is determined by the amount of good it brings when followed
        
        judge morality of actions by reference to moral rules
        
        judge moral rules by seeing acceptance into moral code would produce more wellbeing than other rules/no rule
        
        John Stuart Mill
        
        Non-hedoinistic Utilitarianist
        
        Qualitative Calculation
        
        differing between high & lower pleasures
        
        humans
        
        animals
        
        "fools"
        
        long-term pleasures > short term pleasures
        
        2 more items...
        
        • If following rule-R maximizes utility R is right, perhaps morally required/obligatory
        • If following rule-R does not maximize utility R is wrong, perhaps morally forbidden
        
        Benefits:
        
        allows to defend and maintain everyday moral norms
        
        No issue of the prediction problem
        
        once a rule is set in place all actions can the measured according to this rule
        
        special rules for special circumstances are possible (as long as the consequences are morally right)
        
        Objections
        
        When it is clear that breaking a rule in a given case will maximise utility how can the RULE Utilitarian defend abiding by the rule?
        
        if it is not possible Rule Utilitarianism dissolves into Act Utilitarianism
        
        are character traits recognised? Are they just motives to follow a certain rule?
        
        Use Principle of Utility to rest rules for action
        
        Objections
        
        the end does not justify the means
        
        compared to consequentialism
        
        The "end" is an ambiguous term
        
        when are results evaluated?
        
        "the "end" "for the greatest number or for "all individuals"?
        
        If a majority benefits, is it right that a minority suffers?
        
        Measurement-Problem:
        
        how to measure utility? (pain / pleasure)
        
        impartial
        
        Ethical Egoism
        consequences for me
        
        Group Consequentialism
        consequences for my group, nation, fellow believers
      - teleological approach
        
        An action is right if and only if it promotes the best consequences
        
        What constitutes the best consequences?
        -> What maximises happiness?
      - How to face an ethical dilemma?
        
        Evaluate likely consequence of each possible action
        
        Compare them
        
        Take action that maximizes happiness
      - Questions of Consequentialism
        
        What value is it that we seek to maximize?
        
        How can we define happiness?
        
        What counts as the "end"
        
        What is the temporal dimension?
        
        Measurement problem: How can I measure the good to be maximized?
        
        Prediction problem: How can I know what to do to maximize the good given uncertainty?
        
        How can I decide in the face of uncertainty?
      - Impartiality of Consequentialism
        
        Everybody's happiness counts the same ->
        you should favor nobody not even close ones or yourself
        
        Classic: "One thought too many"
        
        two shipwrecked persons can be rescued:
        
        one is in a relationship with the rescuer while the other shipwrecked individual is somebody random
        
        it is unrealistic that somebody will let go of every identifying personality-trait to step outside his/her own demand
        
        It is "one thought too many", to question how to act in the given situation.
    - - Moral Value
        
        What is naturally good / God's will
      - focus
        at universally natural good
      - Normative Natural Law
        
        Aristotelian
        
        What is good
        
        is the flourishing or final end (telos)
        
        == Eudaimonia
        
        objectively determined
        by nature
        
        what it is to flourish is true for all people
        how my vary
        
        particular law
        
        common law
        
        practical reasoning allows us to
        know what we should do to flourish
        
        Plato
        
        What is good
        
        is objectively given by nature of the world
        human nature is essentially irrelevant
        
        Beauty, knowledge etc. as goods in-and-of-themselves, regardless of facts about humans
        
        Role of humans:
        
        not define set the good
        
        merely define what the possibilities
        
        We can know what is good trough rational contemplation
        
        Thomist NLT
        
        Relation between faith & reason
        
        "Naturnotwendig will der Mensch das Gute"
        
        wanting good != doing good -> focusing on good
        
        inspired by aristotle
        
        common end that is the last end of practical reasoning
        
        Bliss
        
        happiness
        
        Teleological Natural Law Theory
        
        Everything has a purpose (telos) at which it is aimed
        
        Seed -> to become a tree
        
        Fulfillment can be thwarted:
        
        seed can land on unfavorable ground and die
        
        it is naturally good are the means to fulfill one's telos
        
        telos = by the will of God
        
        Reasoning to gain insight of Gods will
        
        Come to know fundamental good
        
        Derivationism
        
        derived from scientific observations
        
        Through examination of potentialities of human life
        → ascertain good things for humans
        → derive precepts of Natural law
        
        Pro:
        
        retains naturalism
        
        Con:
        
        Naturalistic fallacy?
        
        Struggles to explain ubiquity
        
        Inclinationism
        
        Answered by reflection on immediately and underived knowable facts about own inclination
        
        Pro:
        
        Explains ubiquity
        
        Con:
        
        Link between directness and the good is unclear
        
        Surely not everything to which we are directed is good
        
        finding middle path is most promising solution (Wall)
        
        Hobbesian NLT
        
        What is good
        
        is determined by subjective desire
        
        subjectivists theory of the good:
        what makes it true that something is
        good is that it is desired or liked
        
        Reason is instrumental to reach desires
        
        substantive goods
        impartant: avoid death
        
        goods that are desired by multiple humans
        
        Natural law
        is "a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or takes away the means of preserving the same; and to omit that by which he thinks it
        may best be preserved.""
        
        right action is action that aims at what universally and naturally good
        
        Important Questions
        
        What is naturally good?
        
        How can we know what is universally & naturally good?
        
        Socrates
      - principle of conduct
        
        Adherence to the Natural Law
      - Metaethical Natural Law Theory
        
        moral expectations are objectively derived from
        
        nature of human beings
        
        nature of the world
        
        Divine Command Theory
        
        God tells us what is right & wrong
        
        Plato's Euthyphro Dilemma
        (Socrates)
        
        “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
        
        “Would cruelty be wrong only because God forbids it, or does God forbid it because it is wrong?"
        
        “Is an act right because God says it’s so, or does God say it’s so because it’s right?
        
        God loves X BECAUSE it is good
        
        Morality is independent of God
        Denial of Divine command theory
        
        Goodness is determined independently of God
        
        God is not omnipotent
        
        X is good BECAUSE God loves it
        
        Morality is arbitrary
        If Gods choices are arbitrary, morality is not objective
        
        anything at any time could become good or bad
      - Objections to NLT
        
        1
        
        what is the case conflates which ought to be the case
        
        One cannot logically derive a moral imperative by observing facts of nature
        
        2
        
        Objection against moral principles written in the laws of nature (by God)
        scientific perspective focuses on cause & effect in natural world
        → not morals & values
  - - - Moral value
        derives from a Good Character
      - Principle of Conduct
        "What would a virtious agent do?"
      - Focus on:
        What kind of person do I want to be?
        if we focus on being good people the right actions will follow, effortlessly
      - what is virtuos?
        if you are virtuous you know what to do
      - Virtues
        == excellent character traits
        entrenched in our motivations
        
        Particular Virtues
        
        Courage
        
        mid-point between cowardice & recklessness
        
        assess situation, know own abilities & take action that is right in the particular situation
        
        Courage == finding the right way to act
        
        Honesty
        
        mid-point to say the right things
        
        == knowing
        
        what has to be said
        
        how to say things
        
        hard truths
        
        constructive criticism
        
        Generosity
        
        mid-point between stinginess & prodigality
        
        Loyalty
        
        mid-point between individualism and collectivism
        
        arête
        
        Meta-Virtue
        fulfillment of purpose or function:
        the act of living up to one's full potential
        
        pursuing & moderating virtues
        
        Phronesis
        == practical wisdom
        
        to balance between Vices
        
        from Moral Exemplars
        to learn from
        
        watch & repeat
        
        Golden Mean
        
        Vices
        Golden mean is placed between two extremes
        inferior/blameworthy traits
        
        Defficiency --- Golden Mean (virtue) --- Excess
        
        Not an arithmetic median between Vices
        
        relative to us individually, not the thing
        
        defined through Reason
        
        Intellectual Virtues
        taught thorugh instruction
        
        Wisom
        
        Understanding
        
        Prudence
        
        Moral Virtues
        result of habit & practice
        
        Prudence
        
        Justice
        
        Fortitude
        
        Temperance
      - WHY?
        
        Eudaimonia is achievable
        "a life well lived"
        
        always having to learn to become better
      - Aristotelan Virtue Ethics
        
        arête
        excellence / virtue
        act of living up to one's full potential
        
        Telos
        the purpose of every species
        
        difference in telos between species -> different arête is needed
        
        achieving Telos == "Goodness"
        
        Eudaimonia
        Human Telos
        
        happiness/flourishing
        
        good as end-in-itself
        
        //not an emotional state
        //not honestly achievable
        
        Judging any action:
        observe how well the behavior contributes to her satisfaction/fulfillment
        
        Aim for a good life by living virtuosly
        
        Difference to NLT:
        NTL: moral value is following a law
        VE: moral value is being virtues
        Being not Doing
        
        Ergon
        ==function
        ergon of humans is guiding ourselves by use of reason
        
        Nichomachean Ethics
        
        actively pursuing virtues
      - Objections
        
        Cultural relativism
        
        not all virtues are shared between different societies
        
        are they all manifestations of practical wisdom (phronesis)?
        
        Naturalistic Fallacy
        
        You cannot derive an ought from an is (Hume)
        
        Eudaimonia & arete are based on what is
        
        why should a eudaimonic life be valued?
        
        situationist Social Psychology
        
        "character traits" do not exist
        
        no traits = no virtues, no virtues = no virtue ethics //empirically contested
        
        Failure to Guide Action
        
        without a theoretical set of principles
        
        how to act if virtues stand against each other?
        
        there is and never was a 100% virtuous person
        
        outdated norms (males > females)
      - Strengths of VE
        
        importance of the person, motives, "heart", conscience
        
        Connection to community
        
        Connecting virtues and happiness
        
        Morality is not defined by moments but a long-term process
        
        Allowance for gray areas, varying contexts, different levels of moral maturity and life contexts
    - - Kantian Deontology
        
        Moral Value
        Personality (Understood as conception of autonomy)
        
        The Categorical Imperative
        Principle of conduct
        
        categorical = universal & without condition
        
        == the moral reason itself
        
        5 Formulations
        
        Universal Formula
        
        Universal Natural Law
        
        "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the
        same time will that it become a universal law of nature.”
        
        Universality
        
        Act token == morally right
        if and only if the actions maxim is universalizable
        
        "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.”
        
        Perfect & Imperfect Duties
        
        If a maxim is not conceivable then there is a perfect duty against it
        
        Perfect Duty
        an exceptionless and constant duty
        E.g. Do not lie, do not murder, do not steal
        -> categorical in nature
        
        Imperfect Duty
        
        does not require to be followed in every instance
        
        must be followed to some sufficient degree
        -> consistent in nature (non-self-contradictory)
        
        (Duty of Charity/
        Help old lady over street - would she also help you? -> no)
        
        Humanity
        
        "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.
        
        Human beings have intrinsic value
        -> must no be used merely as (instrumental) means
        
        Value derives from "personality"
        == autonomy, rationality
        
        Autonomy
        
        “the idea of the will of every rational being as a universally
        legislating will”
        
        == result of Perfect/Imperfect & Humanity Formula
        
        maxims shall not infringe freedom of ourselves nor of others
        
        All maxims are autonomous
        -> each maxim is to be universally self-legislated
        this rules out forms of paternalism
        
        How to Define Maxim
        
        formulate a maxim for acting
        
        recast maxim as a universal law for all rational agents
        
        consider whether your maxim is even conceivable
        
        ask yourself whether you would/could/rationally will to act on maxim in a world goverened by it
        
        Stress 3 & 4
        
        if okay -> morally permissible
        
        if inconsistent/contradicting -> morally impermissible
        
        fails 3. step:
        perfect duty
        ->
        
        fails 4. step:
        imperfect duty
        
        Assumption
        if there are moral principles they must be universal
        
        knowable through reason not passion
        
        Good Will =
        all that can be "good" without qualification
        
        a will in accordance with the moral law grasped through reason
        
        personal emotions are not relevant for the qualification of justification
        
        Even if by bad luck a good person never accomplishes anything much, the good will would shine "like a jewel, still shine by its own light as something which has its full value in itself."
        
        How to apprehend moral law?
        
        investigate formal structure
        
        Practical reason: Reasoning to the question "What should I do?" [contra to theoretical " What should I believe"]
        
        Practical reasons > imperatives (hypothetical imperatives)
        
        Hypothetical Imperatives
        
        if you desire X you must do Y
        (desire (need) money -> get a job)
        
        == an imperative that isnt always true
        (only if the first part of the contingent is met)
        
        Objections
        
        moral rules may conflict (perfect duties)
        
        duty not to lie VS duty not to facilitate the murder of innocents
        
        lying is never permissable
        
        imperfect duties might be resolved
        
        over detailed maxims (a maxim for a date/time/place - "what happens in...")
        
        what is morally relevant?
        
        only rational beings; it excludes:
        
        Children
        
        non-human animals
        
        the mentally impaired
        
        fetuses
        
        // the categorical imperative is holding to established social systems and thereby ignoring the possibility of social change
      - key takeaways:
        
        intention or motive for an action matters
        
        the quality of will of the agent matters
        -> deontology != teleological/consequentialist
      - deon = greek for binding
  - - - Prisoners Dilemma
        
        Individual vs Collective Rationality
        
        The two players in the game have been accused of a crime and have been placed in separate rooms so that they cannot communicate with one another.
        
        Each player is asked independently whether he is going to confess to the crime or remain silent.
        
        Whatever the other does, each is better off
        confessing than remaining silent.
        -> It is difficult to get rational, selfish agents to
        cooperate for their common good
        
        Premises:
        
        Narrow view of individuals
        
        Depending on uncertainty regarding others' actions
        
        Standard Solutions
        
        Appeal to fairness
        
        Appeal to broader self-interest
      - Tragedy of the Commons
        commons = shared unregulated resource
        
        situation in which multiple independent and rational individuals consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen."
        
        The Parable (Hardin 1968)
        
        Overstocking of a field by a herd
      - Thomas Hobbes
        
        human nature is selfish & brutish
        
        people will always fear one another
      - State of Nature
        
        All humans possess ”appetites and aversions”
        
        All human possess instrumental reason
        
        Means-ends reasoning
        
        Appetites cannot all be mutually fulfilled
        
        Ergo: State of Nature is a state of “war of all
        against all”
        
        But: Humans want peace
        
        Social Contract
        
        Means of escaping the State of Nature
        
        Hypothetical contract between citizens
        
        Sets limits and rules to ensure peace
        
        Everyone has a reason to free ride
        
        THUS: must have executive power
        
        Hobbes: absolute sovereign
        
        Civil Society
        
        Benefits co-operation
        
        Accepted limits to freedom
        
        Moral rules = will of the sovereign
    - - Rawlsian Contractualism
        "Theory of Fairness"
        
        State of Nature = Veil of Ignorance
        Original Position = individual perspective
        everyone is imagined to be ignorant to his/her individual characteristics
        
        no ability to define own personality
        
        social positions are unknown to the parties
        
        Become rid of Bias'es
        
        becoming open to a more egalitarian share
        
        Maxim strategy: focusing on the members worst of
        
        John Rawls
        1921-2002
        
        Democratic Theories + Game Theory
        
        Justice in center of Social Contract
        
        ethically correct way to distribute benefits & burdens
        
        Goals:
        
        set the general social framework for a liberal society
        
        How to organize an institution (rule 1 > rule 2)
        
        Principle of Equal Liberty
        Each person has an equal right to the most extensive scheme of rights and liberties compatible with a similar scheme for all
        
        Difference Principle
        Arrangement of social/economic inequalities:
        
        the greatest benefit to the least advantaged person
        
        attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of equal opportunity
        
        Objections
        
        exclusion of one not part of the contract (mentally handicapped
        
        Exclusion of societies with less liberal-democratic standards
        
        Is a unencumberec self even possible? (being divorced from characteristics
        
        Is Risk taking appropriate?
      - Jean-Jacques Rousseau
        
        Civil society brings people together for the common good
        
        sovereignity by general assembly
      - State of Nature
        
        All humans possess ”appetites and aversions”
        
        including empathy
        
        All human possess instrumental reason
        
        Means-ends reasoning
        
        And reasoning towards the "good"
        
        Appetites cannot all be mutually fulfilled
        
        Good in abundance
        
        Ergo: State of Nature is a state of “Noble Savage”
        
        Human life is Edenic, perfect freedom and equality
        
        Exiting State of Nature because of Private Property
        
        Civil Society
        
        Defined by “Haves” and “Have-nots” – inequality
        Haves make the rules
        
        alienates all people from inherent goodness
        
        undermines empathy and respect for others
        
        Everybody loses freedom
        
        Have-Nots must obey the rules
        
        Haves are slave to their property
        -> differences make us bad
        
        Social Contract
        
        General Assembly needed
        
        Results must be unanimous
        
        The General Will
        
        aims at the common good
        
        all citizens are free under their own laws
        
        freedom & authority are not contradictory
- - - - Tuskegee
        
        Syphillis Study on Black Americans
        
        uninformed
        
        not offered existing treatment
        
        Justification
        
        Knowledge worth sacrifice of few (Utilitarianism)
        
        No point of losing knowledge by stopping study
        
        Subjects were going to get syphilis anyways (racism)
        
        No effective cures?
        
        Subjects gave (uninformed) consent
      - WW2
        
        concentration camp research
        
        Serologicology / Sterilisation
        
        Heteroplastic Experiments
        
        High-altitude, freezing, making seawater potable
        
        UK & Japan
        
        Experiments of soldiers & prisoners
      - After WW2
        Guatemala STD study
        (deliberately infecting 1,500 humans)
      - Stanford Prison Experiment
        studying human nature
      - Pre WW2
        
        smallpox
        
        self experiments
        
        slave experimetns
    - - new technology
    - - weak PP
        requires the lack of evidence of harm
      - strong PP
        requires absolute proof of safety
    - - Knowledge as one Virtue
        
        does not trump all other virtues
      - Bringing yourself in the position of what you would be willing to participate in
        (//contract ethics/virtue ethics - approac)
      - Ethical Codes
        
        Belmont Report (after Tuskegee)
        
        Nuremberg Code (after WW2)
  - - - Tensions between Principles
        
        autonomy v beneficence
        
        autonomy v non-maleficence
        
        interventing against foreseeable harm by violating autonomy
        
        euthanasia
        
        justice v beneficence/non-maleficence
        
        line jumping on organ donation
        
        beneficence + non-maleficence & Doctrine of Double Effect
        
        morality of side-effects
        
        DDE = less moral responsibility for side-effects (focus on means intended //Kant)
    - - Assisted Suicide
        
        Key questions
        
        who decides?
        
        Voluntary: the patient
        
        may achieve autonomy & justice // probably against beneficience
        
        Involuntary: Contrary to what patient wishes
        
        achieving beneficience // violates autonomy & justice
        
        Nonvoluntary: decision by friends/family/phyicians
        
        for situations in which patient cannot decide
        
        conflicts between parties & conflicting principles
        
        Terri Sciavo
        
        Life support of 26 year old
        
        parents vs husband
      - Euthanasia == "good death"
        
        Arguments against
        P1: killing is morally wring
        P2: Euthanasia is killing (self/others)
        Conclusion = Euthanasia is morally wrong
        
        Types of Euthanasia
        
        Active Euthanasia
        
        killing a patient by active means
        
        act of comission
        
        generally illegal
        
        Passive Euthanasia
        
        letting die (withholding artificial life support)
        
        act of omission
        not necessarily illegal
        
        Physician Assisted Euthanasia
        
        providing the neccessary means and/or information to enable the patient to perform life-ending act
    - - Illness-Wellness Continuum
        treatment versus enhancement in beyond the realms of the steps:
        
        premature-death
        
        disability
        
        symptopms
        
        signs
        
        Neutral point
        
        Awareness
        
        Education
        
        Growth
        
        High Level Wellness
      - Exampels
        
        WW2: Pervitin
        enhancing soldiers mood & abilities for long battle situations
        
        Beta Blockers
        
        block / erase memories
        delete emotional content
        
        PTSD-treatment
        -> enhancement or therapy?
  - - - Benefits
        
        faster service
        
        big data analysis
        
        personalized medicine
        
        presence when humans cannot offer it
        
        save time lower costs, increase accuracy
      - Fears
        De-humanizing care
      - Examples
        
        Surgical Assistants
        
        Diagnostic Assistants
        
        Medication Management
        
        Precision Medicine
        
        Healthcare Monitoring
        
        Genomics
        
        Carebots
      - Key Question
        Who can be hold responsible where there are Human-AI hybrids //both designers & practicioners
    - - Principle
        
        can we reward & punish a robot? (WTF?)
        
        would killingcivilians by AAS be a war-crime?
        
        Robots do not rape, plunder, torture (//as long as they are not programmed to)
        
        argument of Terror
      - Risk
        
        is it wrong to kill someone with a robot?
        
        is it too easy to kill someone with a robot?
        
        is it dehumanising or disrespectful?
    - - dilemmas
        
        whose morality to use?
        
        "Threat of instrumentalizing morality:
        
        do we need to be moral if our machines can do it for us? //why remember things if you can always look them up -> unlearning morality?
- - - - peoples
        
        decisions
        
        actions
        
        ways of life
    - - State interference (laws, regulations, nudging, ...)
      - Inerference by other people
      - Cultural expectations
  - - - Everything that can be known about people
    - - Social Media
      - The Internet
      - Government Surveilance
      - Gossiping
      - Spying
  - - - Whatever a Person does within her own four walls
    - - Government intrusion (search warrants, SWAT teams)
      - Voyeurism
      - Lacking a room of one's own
- - - - violation when somebody else accesses one's data
      - Ex.:
        if we lose diary and recollect it before somebody reads it, no privacy loss seems to occur
    - - Privacy is violated when somebody
        takes control of ones data
        
        even when no data is accessed
  - - - No Blackmailing Attempt
        
        no reduction in security
        
        no privacy loss
      - Blackmailing Attempt
        
        No privacy loss
        
        reduction in security
    - - Blackmailing Attempt
        
        privacy loss
        
        reduction in security
      - No Blackmailing Attempt
        
        privacy loss
        
        no reduction in security