Ethics of AI

Author(s):  
Kevin B. Korb

The first question concerns the kinds of AI we might achieve moral, immoral, or amoral. The second concerns the ethics of our achieving such an AI. They are more closely related than a first glance might reveal. For much of technology, the National Rifle Association’s neutrality argument might conceivably apply: “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” But if we build a genuine, autonomous AI, we arguably will have to have built an artificial moral agent, an agent capable of both ethical and unethical behavior. The possibility of one of our artifacts behaving unethically raises moral problems for their development that no other technology can.

Author(s):  
L. Hughes Cox

In what follows I examine the following question: does it make a difference in moral psychology whether one adopts Aristotle's ordinary or Kant's revisionist definition of virtue as habit? Points of commensurability and critical comparison are provided by Kant's attempt to refute Aristotle's definition of virtue as a mean and by the moral problems of ignorance (I don't know what I ought to do) and weakness (I don't do what I know I ought to do). These two problems are essential topics for moral psychology. I show two things. First, Kant's definition is revisionist because he excludes from moral habit-formation what Aristotle includes, that is, (i) practice in prudential calculation of a mean, and (ii) habit-formation by repetition. This follows from Kant's insistence that an act is virtuous only if the moral agent is willing freely and universally. Secondly, Aristotle's virtues modify behavior directly, whereas Kant's virtues modify behavior indirectly by creating moral feeling which, in turn, represses the temptations of the natural inclination. I suggest, thirdly, that as one approximates Kant's ideal of perfect virtue, entailed by the broad duties of beneficence and self-perfection, the difference in kind invented by Kant between virtue and prudence, as a morally neutral rational skill, erodes and becomes a difference in degree. I conclude that Aristotle's ordinary definition of virtue is better able to modify human behavior and solve these two moral problems.


2000 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 251-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Allen ◽  
Gary Varner ◽  
Jason Zinser

2020 ◽  
pp. 53-63
Author(s):  
Colin Allen ◽  
Gary Varner ◽  
Jason Zinser

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document