Search results

This paper aims to contribute to the futurology of a possible artificial intelligence (AI) breakthrough, by reexamining the Omohundro–Bostrom theory for instrumental vs final AI goals. Does that theory, along with its predictions for what a superintelligent AI would be motivated to do, hold water?

The standard tools of systematic reasoning and analytic philosophy are used to probe possible weaknesses of Omohundro–Bostrom theory from four different directions: self-referential contradictions, Tegmark’s physics challenge, moral realism and the messy case of human motivations.

The two cornerstones of Omohundro–Bostrom theory – the orthogonality thesis and the instrumental convergence thesis – are both open to various criticisms that question their validity and scope. These criticisms are however far from conclusive: while they do suggest that a reasonable amount of caution and epistemic humility is attached to predictions derived from the theory, further work will be needed to clarify its scope and to put it on more rigorous foundations.

The practical value of being able to predict AI goals and motivations under various circumstances cannot be overstated: the future of humanity may depend on it. Currently, the only framework available for making such predictions is Omohundro–Bostrom theory, and the value of the present paper is to demonstrate its tentative nature and the need for further scrutiny.

The purpose of this paper is to offer a new requisitely holistic definition of business ethics (BE) as a crucial component of business cybernetics and practice. The present contribution considers a basic problem: how humans use BE to influence their business processes. Therefore, business is/should be investigated from the viewpoint of ethics. Requisite holism of understanding and consideration of BE in business reality is unavoidable; it can (and must) result from findings and considerations of the interdependence between business practice, ethics, and BE.

In this paper, qualitative analysis is applied on the basis of the cybernetics (e.g. especially business cybernetics), dialectical systems theory, and ethics theory.

Ethics is a crucial emotional part of human attributes. They can be viewed as the subjective part of the starting points of any human acting/behavior process, including business. Thus, ethics (may) have/has a crucial role in business cybernetics and practice as BE. To clarify and beneficially use BE, one must understand relations between business cybernetics and BE, between business practice and BE, and understand the diversity of content of BE in literature, etc. On this base offered here is an understanding of BE, a definition of the content of BE as a specific type/part of ethics, and a view at source of BE content.

Content of BE. Research is limited to hypothesis and qualitative analysis in desk research. Practical experience is considered implicitly.

This is a step toward development of business cybernetics with a requisitely holistic approach founded on requisite wholeness of insight. A more specifically created and target‐oriented approach to cybernetic understanding and research of BE of business systems is encouraged.

This paper presents a very new approach, rarely found in main‐stream literature; a new perception and definition of content of BE.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the internal structure of Gandhi's ethics as a way to determine opportunities for improving that system's ability to influence behavior. In this paper, the author aims to work under the idea that a system of ethics is a guide for social responsibility.

The data source is Gandhi's set of ethics as described by Naess. These simple (primarily quantitative) studies compare the concepts within the code of ethics, and their relationships to one another.

Gandhi's ethics are robust at the 0.25 level (the scale is zero to one – zero is lowest). This is consistent with theories of the social sciences (that do not work well in practice). Gandhi's success might be ascribed to his leadership ability.

Some suggest this approach is reductionist because of its superficial similarity to approaches of physical science. The implications for research are profound. First, this approach provides an objective method for comparing (and so, advancing) systems of ethics. Second, this paper suggests the opportunity to compare the internal structure of ethics with “external” aspects – the implementation of ethical systems.

By itself, Gandhi's system of ethics cannot be reliably applied in practice ‐ it cannot be expected to change behavior more than any other system of ethics. This raises concerns about other ethical codes as well. The practical implications of the form of analysis presented in this paper are immense because it provides a way for practitioners to objectively compare two codes of ethics and determine which one will be more effective.

The approach documented in the paper has never been applied to the field of ethics. It is unique in that it addresses the “internal” structure of a system of ethics (compared to the “external”, or application, of ethical systems).

Human–animal economic relations range from exploitative objectification and mass killing of animals in industrial livestock to species-appropriate husbandry or collaboration of humans and animals in therapy or rescue work. Should they be abolished or are there options for their moral permissibility? I propose using a three-level model to distinguish between morally impermissible and acceptable economic relations of humans and animals. A further step explores how an animal-oriented economy can be implemented on existing markets against the background of a philosophical theory for acceptable use of animals in the economy. Rather than developing a theory, it suggests research projects for an animal friendly economy. Market sociology reveals that sophisticated markets are a potential platform for animal welfare and that they allow a countermovement against animal exploitation. This understanding of markets also connects animals to value theory or to the idea of social cost. This way a consistent theoretical frame for animal welfare in economy is imaginable and suggested for further research.