Part 5. "The nature of evil" or "The good, the bad, and the evil"
Since we've got the (slightly revised :-) goal of a Friendly individual and the Friendly society -- "Don't act contrary to anyone's goals unless absolutely necessary" -- we now can evaluate actions as good or bad in relation to that goal. *Anything* that doesn't act contrary to someone's goals is GOOD. Anything that acts contrary to anyone's goals is BAD to the extent that it is not absolutely necessary. EVIL is the special case where an entity *knowingly and intentionally* acts contrary to someone's goals when it isn't absolutely necessary for one of the individual's own primary goals. This is the *intentional* direct opposite of the goal of Friendliness and it is in the Friendly society's best interest to make this as unappealing as possible. *Any* sufficiently effective Friendly society will *ENSURE* that the expected utility of EVIL is negative by raising the consequences of (sanctions for) EVIL to a level where it is clearly apparent that EVIL is not in an entity's self-interest. The reason why humans are frequently told "Evil doesn't mean stupid" is because many of us sense at a very deep level that, in a sufficiently efficient ethical/Friendly society, EVIL *is* stupid (in that it is not in an entity's self-interest). It's just a shame that our society is not sufficiently efficiently ethical/Friendly -- YET! Vladimir's crush-them-all is *very* bad. It is promoting that society's goal of safety (which is a valid, worthwhile goal) but it is refusing to recognize that it is *NOT* always necessary and that there are other, better ways to achieve that goal (not to mention the fact that the aggressor society would probably even benefit more by not destroying the lesser society's). My impression is that Vladimir is "knowingly and intentionally" acting contrary to someone else's goals when it isn't absolutely necessary because it is simply more convenient for him (because it certainly isn't safer since it invites sanctions like those following). This is EVIL. If I'm a large enough, effective enough Friendly society, Vladimir's best approach is going to be to immediately willingly convert to Friendliness and voluntarily undertake reparations that are rigorous enough that their negative utility is just greater than the total expected utility of the greater of either a) the expected utility of any destroyed civilizations or b) the utility that his society derived by destroying the civilization. If Vladimir doesn't immediately convert and undertake reparations, the cost and effort of making him do so will be added to the reparations. These reparations should be designed to assist every other Friendly *without* harming Vladimir's society EXCEPT for the cost and effort that are diverted from Vladimir's goals. Now, there is one escape hatch that immediately springs to the mind of the UnFriendly that I am now explicitly closing . . . . Generic sub-goals are *not* absolutely necessary. A Friendly entity does not act contrary to someone's goals simply because it is convenient, because it gives them more power, or because it feels good. In fact, it should be noted that allowing generic subgoals to override other's goals is probably the root of all evil (If you thought that it was money, you're partially correct. Money is Power is a generic sub-goal). Pleasure is a particularly pernicious sub-goal. Pleasure is evolutionarily adaptive when you feel good when you do something that is pro-survival. It is most frequently an indicator that you are doing something that is pro-survival -- but as such, seeking pleasure is merely a subgoal to the primary goal of survival. There's also a particular problem in that pleasure evolutionarily lags behind current circumstances and many things that are pleasurable because they were pro-survival in the past are now contrary to survival or most other goals(particularly when practiced to excess) in the present. Wire-heading is a particularly obvious example of this. Every other goal of the addicted wire-head is thrown away in search of a sub-goal that leads to no goal -- not even survival. I do want to be clear that there is nothing inherently wrong in seeking pleasure (as the Puritans would have it). Pleasure can rest, relax, and de-stress you so that you can achieve other goals even if it has no other purpose. The problem is when the search for pleasure overrides your own goals (addiction) or those of others (evil unless provably addiction). TAKE-AWAYs: a.. EVIL is knowingly and intentionally acting contrary to someone's goals when it isn't necessary (most frequently in the name of some generic sub-goal like pleasure, power, or convenience). b.. The sufficiently efficient ethical/Friendly society WILL ensure that the expected utility of EVIL is negative (i.e. not in an entity's self-interest and, therefore, stupid) Part 6 will move towards a more positive note and cover the "SHOULD"s of Friendliness (which make evident more of the true benefits of Friendliness). ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
