Which Ethical Theory Will Prevail in a Posthuman World?
Kris Notaro
2011-03-21 00:00:00

Firstly I think it would be a good idea to go over what a "concept" is. A concept is basically a theory, or a unit of knowledge about the universe and ourselves. Concepts are apt to change like theories are, but some concepts remain prominent throughout history. The question then, is, will concepts change or be enhanced as the mind becomes enhanced? For example the mental representation of the category of dogs come with it many different abstract ideas and information. Will the posthuman know everything about dogs and think of dogs so differently then we do that their concept of dog doesn't even closely resemble ours? Simply put, one thinks of different breeds, colors, temper, and so on, reinforced through language of the particular culture one is from.(1) Concepts, in philosophy, described by Encyclopedia Britannica are


"...the subject matter of philosophy, which philosophers of the Analytic school hold to be concerned with the salient features of the language in which people speak of concepts at issue. Concepts are thus logical, not mental, entities. A typical instance of the use of concept is in The Concept of Mind (1949) by Gilbert Ryle, an Oxford Analyst, which implies that the purpose of the author is not to investigate matters of fact empirically (i.e., by the methods of psychology) about the mind itself but to investigate its "logical geography."(2)

Certain concepts and theories in my view cannot go away (but can only be enhanced) when we produce smarter brains, AI who are intelligent as we are or more intelligent, or through the technological singularity situation. Five concepts of ethics that seems to me will remain very prominent are listed below with a brief description.

The Categorical Imperative is a concept/theory that was developed by Immanuel Kant stating that one should act in such a way where their actions can and should become a universal law. The classic way of describing the problem with the Categorical Imperative is through a story which describes a situation where one does not lie because it is considered by them that lying is wrong and thus must be a universal law that lying is wrong. The story goes: there is someone running away from someone else with a gun, the person with the gun comes along and asks an observer where the fleeting person went. If it is the case that lying is wrong and is always wrong, the observer then tells the gunman where the person went.

The concept of Utilitarianism states that someone should act in such a way to bring goodness and happiness to the greatest amount of people as possible. John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism is the leading ethic that rivals The Categorical Imperative. Utilitarianism tends to use the idea of consequentialist calculation to determine the right thing do in a particular situation. The actor thus needs to calculate how they will bring about the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people through their actions as apposed to making their actions a universal law.

Existential Ethics, especially Sartre's and Simone de Beauvoir's theories suggest that people are free to do what they want and that existential angst, dread, and anxiety is a result of such freedom. However, Simone de Beauvoir believed unless everyone in the world is free, then no one is truly free. Sartre wrote that "[people are] a being who hurls [themselves] toward a future." Beauvoir adds that "To want existence, to want to disclose the world, and to want [people/minds] to be free are one and the same will." Wikipedia clearly defines the existential facticity of a human mind; "Facticity is both a limitation and a condition of freedom. It is a limitation in that a large part of one's facticity consists of things one couldn't have chosen (birthplace, etc.), but a condition in the sense that one's values most likely will depend on it. However, even though one's facticity is "set in stone" (as being past, for instance), it cannot determine a person: The value ascribed to one's facticity is still ascribed to it freely by that person."(3) "We are condemned to be free because we are responsible for what we choose to be."(4)

Normative Intellectualism seeks to find answers about how we are supposed to act through advances in science and knowledge.

Technoprogressivism "Technoprogressivism maintains that accounts of "progress" should focus on scientific and technical dimensions, as well as ethical and social ones. For most technoprogressive perspectives, then, the growth of scientific knowledge or the accumulation of technological powers will not represent the achievement of proper progress unless and until it is accompanied by a just distribution of the costs, risks, and benefits of these new knowledges and capacities. At the same time, for most technoprogressive critics and advocates, the achievement of better democracy, greater fairness, less violence, and a wider rights culture are all desirable, but inadequate in themselves to confront the quandaries of contemporary technological societies unless and until they are accompanied by progress in science and technology to support and implement these values.

Strong technoprogressive positions include support for the civil right of a person to either maintain or modify his or her own mind and body, on his or her own terms, through informed, consensual recourse to, or refusal of, available therapeutic or enabling biomedical technology."(5)

The IEET officially promotes the idea of technoprogressivism which has in common with normative intellectualism the idea that science and technological knowledge is valued. However I personally believe in existential ethics mixed with utilitarianism and technoprogressivism for human beings. Existential ethics is a reality for any free person because; as Sartre put it "Existence precedes and rules essence." Existential ethics will, however, be weaned out in a logical scientific posthuman world because posthuman's will have the intellectual capacity to use normative intellectualism, utilitarianism and technoprogressivism to calculate the correct virtuous action.

Anxiety and Existential angst will thus be transferred to utilitarian calculus to compute the correct moral and ethical choice. Choice will only be improved if people/minds are indeed enhanced and attached to super computers via networks. We have a long way to go before this scenario is reality. Although utilitarianism and technoprogressivism is ideal for humans, it is rather hard to predict the future with our current minds. As far as I am concerned humans are stuck with being autonomous free agents (in many situations and countries) where existential anxiety and angst triumphs our decision making.

References

(1) Mazzone, Marco, & Lalumera, Elisabetta. (2010). Concepts: stored or created?.Minds & Machines, 20, 47-68.
(2) http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/130938/concept
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism
(4) http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/sartre.html
(5) http://ieet.org/index.php/tpwiki/Technoprogressivism/
(6) http://www.sciencephoto.com/images/download_lo_res.html?id=844950152