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?
© Ian Bryce
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
2
About
myself:
aerospace
engineer
Methodologies to
analyze complex
events
3
Retirement.
Turned to social sciences
Human behaviour
How hard can it be?
Its not rocket science!
4
Part 1. Where do morals
come from?
5
1. Where do morals come from?
(a) In the tribal culture
Gods
Prophets Holy books
The People 6
Material
realm
Spiritual realm
7
1. Where do morals come from?
(b) But a Problem has been revealed
by travel and communication
8
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
this?
9
1. Where do morals come from?
(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…
10
Where do morals come from?
(d) Post-Enlightenment thinkers
Spiritual realm
Material realm
People
believe
its good
It IS
good
Moral
decisions 11
Where do morals come from?
(d) Post-Enlightenment thinkers
Like a self-
licking ice
cream!
12
Where do morals come from?
(e) Modern science (evolution and
neuroscience) says:
One generation Next generation
Genes
Packages of DNA
passed from parents
Memes
Packages of behaviour
passed from parents
and community
How
characteristics
(physical and
social) are
propagated
through time
This behaviour can
be described as
“built-in”, instinct,
or intuition
13
Material realm
Where do morals come from?
(e) Modern science
Add interactions with others
One generation Next generation
Genes
Packages of DNA
passed from parents
Memes
Packages of behaviour
passed from parents
and community
How
characteristics
(physical and
social) are
propagated
through time Others in tribe
14
Material realm
Where do morals come from?
(e) Modern science:
Now add a new source of behaviour
One generation Next generation
Genes
Packages of DNA
passed from parents
Memes
Packages of behaviour
passed from parents
and community
How
characteristics
(physical and
social) are
propagated
through time
Scientific
knowledge and
analysis
Others in tribe
15
Where do morals come from?
Modern science has answered that.
Briefly: Evolution! Which means:
Variation plus survival of the fittest
© C. Darwin ~1850
• Applies to physical
characteristics and also
behaviour
• For humans and other
animals
16
Part 2. The prior art –
attempts to quantify
morals
17
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
18
Part 2. The prior art – attempts to quantify morals
(a) Peter Singer - Utilitarianism
Philipa Foot, Peter Singer and others – Trolleyology
Uses a basic form of Utilitarianism, which simply counts the lives saved or lost by moral decisions.
19
Part 2. The prior art – attempts to quantify morals
(a) Peter Singer - Utilitarianism
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?
20
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.
Part 2. The prior art – attempts to quantify morals
(a) Peter Singer - Utilitarianism
21
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.
Part 2. The prior art – attempts to quantify morals
(a) Peter Singer - Utilitarianism
22
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.
23
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.
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.
24
Example: The unwilling organ donor
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”.
25
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.
26
Part 2. The prior art – attempts to quantify morals
continued
27
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)
28
Example: trolleyology Part 2. The prior art – attempts to quantify morals
(b) EuroQoL EQ-5D
29
Example: trolleyology Part 2. The prior art – attempts to quantify morals
(b) EuroQoL EQ-5D
30
Example: trolleyology Part 2. The prior art – attempts to quantify morals
(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).
31
Example: trolleyology Part 2. The prior art – attempts to quantify morals
(c) Quality-adjusted Life Years -
QALY
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
Example: trolleyology Part 2. The prior art – attempts to quantify morals
(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
Example: trolleyology Part 2. The prior art – attempts to quantify morals
(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].
34
Example: trolleyology Part 2. The prior art – attempts to quantify morals
(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.
35
Part 3. Constructing our
own morality
36
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.
37
Part 3. Constructing our own morality
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”.
38
Part 3. Constructing our own morality
(a) One principle at a time
Intuition
(genes &
memes)
Science
(evidence &
reason)
Morality
(decision
making)
39
science Decision 1
Principle 1
science Decision 2
Principle 2
science Decision 3
Principle 3
Part 3. Constructing our own morality
(a) One principle at a time
Intuition
(genes &
memes)
Science
(evidence &
reason)
Morality
(decision
making)
science Decision 1
Principle 1
40
science Decision 2
science Decision 3
Part 3. Constructing our own morality
(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.
41
Part 4.
Measuring Morality
42
Part 4. Measuring Morality
Based on “welfare of sentient
beings”.
We need to more closely define
“welfare” and “sentient”.
43
“Welfare of sentient beings”
health
Brain function
Welfare Sentience
Food
Family
Friends
shelter
Combine to
give
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
QoLT
-1 to +1
Birth to death QoL averaged over whole lifetime, for that
individual
Integrate over lifetime (area under the curve)
dt
© 2012 Ian Bryce
45
Measuring Morality
flowchart sheet 2
© 2012 Ian Bryce
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
46
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.
47
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
48
Sentience - the capacity for Pleasure & Pain
(brain function)
– variation throughout a normal life
Sentience
age
birth
Conception
death
Nervous system forms © 2007 Ian Bryce
49
1
0
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
age
Vegetative state Brain injury
Partial recovery
51
1
0
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)
52
(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)
53
0 (unconscious)
For more detail of pain in animals,
see Advanced Topics at end.
54
(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:
EEG
Pin prick
auditory-evoked potentials
Arousal
Questioning during
Memory (by questioning afterwards)
All this forms a coherent picture of sentience in humans.
55
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
56
0.2
1.0
0.5
(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!
57
Sep 2: Welfare
This means the obvious factors affecting
“pleasure and pain” and all other measures
of happiness.
58
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.
60
Welfare – can be put on a scale:
+1.0
0.0
-1.0
food, water
shelter
disease
pain
torture
Family relationships
Fulfillment of wishes
friend relationships
stress
Ability to plan
health
61
The previous slide is an Objective
List method.
As opposed to a Hedonism method:
every hour, self report your
happiness. Unreliable.
62
There are many tried and true
measures of happiness, which
relate closely to welfare:
eg Gross national happiness
63
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.
64
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
Examples from the canine life cycle
Mating - certainly a peak in Welfare 66
Examples from the canine life cycle
Dog is blind, but can still play (I taught them tug of war).
Welfare reduced, but still positive 67
Examples from the canine life cycle
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
X
welfare
69
Human
examples
#1: a
“normal”
human life
Sentience
age
Welfare
Quality of
Life
age
Integrate for
lifetime:
1.0
= one “normal”
human life
+1
0
-1
70
Sentience
age
Welfare
Quality of
life
age
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
+1
0
-1
71
+1
0
+1
0
Sentience
age
Welfare
Quality of
Life
age
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
+1
0
-1
72
Sentience
age
Welfare
Quality of
Life
age
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
assisted termination
Recovery from Mother’s
natural death
+1
0
-1
73
Where are we up to?
Welfare
-1 to +1
Sentience
0 to 1 Quality of Life
-1 to +1
X
X
Quality of Lifetime
-1 to +1
dt
Merit
Sum over
all people
affected
74
Step 4: Quality of Lifetime
Area under each curve
for each person
75
Sentience
age
Welfare
Quality of
Life
age
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)
B: leave her on life support
C: euthanasia
(same graph)
+1
0
-1
76
Sentience
age
Welfare
Quality of
Life
age
For relatives
B: area = 0.8 of normal
C: area = 0.9 of normal
Recovery from Mother’s
assisted termination
Recovery from Mother’s
natural death
+1
0
-1
77
Legend (3 options)
A: a normal life (reference)
B: leave her on life support
C: euthanasia
(same graph)
Where are we up to?
Welfare
-1 to +1
Sentience
0 to 1 Quality of Life
-1 to +1
X
X
Quality of Lifetime
-1 to +1
dt
Merit
Sum
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)
79
One more consequence…
• If Mother is kept on life support for say 5
years
• 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
80
Step 5: Sum over all affected
Add up the equivalent lives for all people
involved
81
Where are we up
to?
© 2012 Ian Bryce
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
82
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
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
83
Where are we up
to?
© 2012 Ian Bryce
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
84
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
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 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.
85
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
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”.
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.
88
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.
89
END
90
Some more detailed examples
91
Sentience
age
Welfare
Quality of
Life
age
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
+1
0
-1
92
Example #3:
brain damage
at mid life
Sentience
steps down
Sentience
age
Welfare
Quality of
Life
age
Integrate
for lifetime:
0.7
+1
0
-1
93
Example #4:
a child in a
dysfunctional
environment,
eg abusive family.
Sentience remains the
same.
The welfare index is
lowered.
Sentience
(same)
age
Wefare
(lowered)
Quality of
Life
(lowered)
age
Integrate for
lifetime:
0.5
+1
0
-1
94
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
Life
age
Sentience
age
+1
0
-1
95
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.
96
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.
97
Advanced Topics
98
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)
99
Advanced Topic #1:
Devaluation by Social Distance
Example 1A:
Trolleyology – 1
person vs 2.
Most people say
they would pull the
lever, killing one
person instead of
two.
100
Advanced Topic #1:
Devaluation by Social Distance
Example 1A:
Trolleyology – 1 person
vs 2.
Example 1B: the one
person is your much
loved son or daughter!
Most people would NOT
pull the lever.
NOT all people are
equal.
101
Advanced Topic #1:
Devaluation by Social Distance
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!
102
Advanced Topic #1:
Devaluation by Social Distance
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:
Devaluation by Social Distance
104
Example 3: the pair of shoes
3A: You see a drowning child on your local park…
Case ->
Person affected
Do nothing Save the
child
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:
Devaluation by Social Distance
105
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
child
0 (miserable
life)
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:
Devaluation by Social Distance
106
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
child
0 (miserable
life)
1.0 x 0.0001
(African life is
devalued)
= +0.0001
The Merit of each
option
0 -0.0002
This is now
the higher
merit
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:
Devaluation by Social Distance
107
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
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:
Devaluation by Social Distance
108
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
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.
109
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.
110
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)
111
Advanced Topic #2:
Animal sentience and pain
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.
112
Advanced Topic #2:
Animal sentience and pain
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.
113
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.
114
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.
115
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
No
surgery
Choose surgery
Outcome - Success Death
Probability - 80% 20%
Life
expectancy
3 years 7 years 0 years
Weighted
life
expectancy
3 0.80*7 + 0.20*0
= 5.6
116
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
lever
Outcome Trolley
continues
on track
A and
kills 2
workmen
Trolley
jumps
track OR
Workmen
jump clear
Trolley is
diverted to
track B and
kills 1
workman
Probabilit
y
45% 55% 100%
No. of
Deaths
2 0 1
Recombin
e case A
0.45*2 + 0.55*0
= 0.9
1
117
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?
118
Advanced Topic #5:
Population issues
119
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
QoLT
-1 to +1
Birth to death QoL averaged over whole lifetime, for that
individual
Integrate over lifetime (area under the curve)
dt
© 2012 Ian Bryce
120
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.
121
Advanced Topic #5:
Population issues
“If all the
world were
like Sweden”.
Population
about 1
billion, and
stable.
Almost
sustainable.
Quality of life
~ 1.0
122
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
123
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!
124
end
125