Nikola Danaylov: It’s Ethics. Not Tech Ethics

I have noticed that almost every startup in almost every industry is claiming “a revolutionary AI or blockchain breakthrough.” [Often both.] More recently I’m flabbergasted to see a similar fad in the growing number of self-proclaimed Tech and AI ethicists. We apparently have an exponential proliferation of what someone called “ethics natives” such as angel investor ethicists, venture capital ethicists, startup ethicists, bitcoin ethicists, blockchain ethicists, unicorn ethicists, AI ethicists, design ethicists, IPO ethicists, etc. Here is the thing: At the end of the day, there is really no such thing as tech ethics. Just like there is no angel investor, venture capital, startup, blockchain, or IPO ethics. There is, really, only ethics. And bullshit ethics. Yes, you can name legitimate examples of branching off such as bioethics. But the reason why they are subdisciplines of ethics is the recognition that there are some overarching principles or an overriding framework that comes first and is primary. It is only then that we have the specific context of medicine, technology, or anything else you’d like to consider. Yes, context is important but it is always secondary because ethics is the context-independent universal foundation or framework which allows you to evaluate any particular and unique problem in ethical terms. So, if you don’t have the foundation that gives meaning, contextual considerations are useless, perhaps damaging. And to the degree that we have made progress in fields such as bioethics, it is because we started with a very strong foundation in ethics. But most AI or Tech “ethicists” can’t even define what ethics is. Even worse – many of them “teach” ethics by starting with the trolley dilemma, euthanasia, abortion, human enhancement, genetic manipulation, etc. But without the foundational framework, the result is only ignorance masquerading as knowledge. So we end up being oblivious to how much we don’t know. And we don’t know that we don’t know because we are obsessed with the specifics of the context while the actual foundation is, at best, an afterthought and, at worse, completely ignored. We arrive at the modern misperception that there is ethics and that there is “applied ethics.” There is not. Because if you can’t apply it, if you can’t use it, it is not ethics. Ethics is practical. It is not a theory. It means “a way of life” [so if it is not lived, it is dead – i.e., not ethics]. It means a group of principles or a “moral code of behavior” concerned with one’s personal character. That is what êthos (ἦθος) means – “character” or [moral] “nature.” That is the original meaning of ethics – ēthikós (ἠθικός) – “relating to one’s character.” So every time you wonder if something is ethics ask yourself: Is this practical advice on how to live my life? Does it relate to the moral nature of my personal or our collective character? Does it provide a code of behavior or a set of principles that can inform and guide me [or us] through hard decisions and situations? If the answer is “No” then chances are it is not ethics. Certainly not in the original meaning of the word as coined by the ancient Greeks. A meaning which we have apparently forgotten but, I believe, we must revive. Read the rest here:https://www.singularityweblog.com/ethics/