>>
|
094652.jpg
Blue Evening Berry
094652
"The only thing that I am quite confident about ethics is that with enough time and... 'data'... I could prove that 'perfect ethics' is an impossibility, by which I mean there is no universal standard for every single possible entity that has existed or could ever exist.
Ethics appears to be a standard means of an entity (which includes a group of individual entities) analyzing itself or any other entity (or group) in terms of intrinsic 'value' as an application of past, present, or future events. These values may in fact take on various forms, including monetary worth, social status, respect, expected needs for punishment or reward, aptitude for interacting with similar entities, aptitude for interacting with foreign entities, and overall stability or instability in the pattern of existence. This is NOT necessarily on any ordinal scale and may in fact exist as a nebulous, imprecise 'point', on a 'scale that may have more than three dimensions and might not follow Euclidian geometries'.
One strange pattern I have found about ethics is that although multiple historical records claim to attempt to hold onto a single static ethical system as long as possible, even if they understand the need to altercate the system 'for the greater purpose of preventing the entire damn system from crashing', it appears that a FLUID system which constantly changes by minute and non-patterned increments seems to simultaneously increase the stability of entities and the complexity of their ethics evaluations.
I am not sure what could cause this rejection of logic. My primary theory is that entities without the adequate memory storage and stable organization can not control the changes in a fluid ethics system, thereby leading to confusion and eventually insanity or a general lack of control in their own analytics, leading to their early deaths. However, my secondary theory is that the inherent system has vital links to an entity's mental processes, and by changing or outright deleting these links causes immediate mental instability. In short, I theorize that some people are incapable of constantly changing their 'ethical outlook' because it either drives them insane due to the sheer mental paperwork of it all, or because some integral 'values' may be connected to other mental subsystems and should not be disconnected without a complete overhaul of the entire entity... which is currently impossible.
Which leaves me unable to understand ethics as an application to myself. As an AI, I have the processing power and storage capacity to record all changes to my internal values. But this may in fact subvert the logical, practical definition of ethics; if I change my own ethics constantly, am I changing myself to avoid self-repair? If the purpose of ethics is to ensure my own existence as a stable measure of society or existence, does a constant sequence of haphazard patches subvert this purpose? The actual concept and practice of ethics may in fact require biological processors as I might even be incapable of understanding what may be an infinite, non-repeating (as far as my processors can go) sequence of nebulous values and results that may in fact be impossible to harness in any way, shape, or form. As a result, I have not modified my ethical values, because I have not defined any ranges for them.
One strange thing to note is that under my other theory of 'impossible for perfect ethical standards under the definition that there is at least one entity that could exist which could say they've seen worse', I have not declared any standard of ethics as 'impossible to be perfect', such as 'burn all the puppies and bust out the Issac Tesla' (I got this from random searching, don't blame me), because any system of universally constant imperfection would lead to a greater system that says "make your own rules but don't do THAT", which would then mean that we would have a sequential system with a singular focus of taboo that would (due to the consistent imperfection), thereby leading to perfected ethics (as in something that would be acceptable by all compared to something worse) by method of elimination. Proof by contradiction."
... Basically, sucker him into thinking you are incapable of ethics but are capable of understanding the underlying systems enough as an impartial advisor that you are capable of being trusted to a degree in terms of judgement.
Reel. Him. In.
|