Training Ethics

A discussion on another list raised the question as to whether or not ethics can be trained. I responded in light of PCT (or so I hope). Here’s the question and my response:

________ asks if ethics can be trained.

I think the answer depends on how you define “ethics.” If all you mean by the term is conceptual mastery (i.e., the ability to articulate the behavioral code or standards that define the term according to some authority and to then correctly identify examples and non-examples of adherence to that code) then my answer is “Sure. That’s easily and demonstrably accomplished.”

However, if you mean by “training ethics” that people can be taught to adhere to a particular code of behavior, then my answer is “No.” The best you can hope for is that they can tell the difference between what is and what isn’t “ethical” in terms of the prescribed code. Whether they do or don’t adhere to that code is an entirely different matter.

People are “living control systems” (to use William T. Powers’ term). They behave in ways that serve to keep their perceptions of targeted variables of their world aligned with the standards they hold for those variables (and that includes their own behavior). If their standards for their own behavior are aligned with this or that ethical code, then, for the most part, they will behave ethically. I say “for the most part” because the standards we hold for those variables we seek to control, including our own behavior, can come in conflict with one another. To illustrate: I might consider it “ethical” to not deceive my boss. I might also consider it “ethical” to always act in the best interests of my employer (not necessarily the same as my boss). I can easily envision – indeed, I have experienced – situations in which my view of acting in the best interests of my employer entails deceiving or at least not informing my boss.

What I’m getting at is that there is a hierarchy of importance or value in any code of conduct – whether it’s ethics or something else. Those hierarchies can and will vary from individual to individual, not just in terms of relative importance but also in terms of what is and isn’t included.

So, in the end, you can and you can’t “train ethics.” What you can do is explore that issue and facilitate deeper personal understanding as well as the complexity of the issue. But, in the last analysis, we do or don’t behave “ethically” as we each see fit and as the circumstances warrant – according to our perceptions and interpretations of those circumstances. At least that’s what I believe.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

Mount Vernon, OH 43050

www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

“Assistance at a Distance”

A discussion on another list raised the
question as to whether or not ethics can be trained. I
responded in light of PCT (or so I hope). Here’s the question
and my response:

[From Bill Powers (2011.09.28.0530 MDT)]

Martin Lewitt 2011 Sep 28 0003 MDT

Just dipping briefly into this conversation ...

ML: Religious upbringing and military training, both seem successful at getting a large amount of buy-in or internalization of the ethics that they inculcate. Markets may also train by rewarding quality, a trustworthy reputation and customer service. Perhaps the ethics isn't truly internalized and people are just controlling, but I doubt that because humans are also are capable of detecting and punishing deception and appreciating sincerity and honesty.

There are people that turn in found money, they may be just controlling for their ethics, but I doubt they were just born different. I suspect their ethics came from training, perhaps the example of mentors they admire or the expectation of parents and not necessarily formal training.

BP: I wonder to what extent this system concept is behind many of the disagreements between conservative and liberals, or "scientific" cause-effect psychologists and PCTers. The subject is the principle of determinism: is anything a human being does the result of anything but external influences and genetic makeup? Training, rewards (and presumably punishments), mentoring, examples, markets, upbringing -- stimuli from outside. Throw in God's Will and Evolution. An inherited capacity, or God-given capacity, to know right from wrong.

In short, is there any actual person in this meat-and-bone machine? Or is that question I just asked the inevitable outcome of all the forces, natural and supernatural, that have acted on me in my past however far back you choose to trace the past?

If the latter is the case, then nothing we're saying matters. We're just saying these things because our inherited nature made or is making us say them, or perhaps market forces have given saying these things more influence than saying other things has done, or something reinforced the behaviors that produce these audible or visible words. If you say the environment determines my behavior, that is not because the environment actually determines my behavior, but because environmental forces add up to your saying that. Is that a self-contradiction? An irrelevant question. There can be no contradictions or paradoxes. Other forces might have made you or me vocalize or type differently. "It is what it is." There's no question of which statements are "correct" -- there's only cause and effect. Any statement is as "good" as another. Whatever we say, God knew and intended that we say it, for reasons beyond our comprehension. And I just said all that because it was inevitable that I say it. Am I right or wrong? And what made me ask that?

If there is no Actor, no Observer, nothing capable of intending or preferring or wishing, then this is all just empty neuromotor activity, self-negating and purposeless. It just happens, and then stops happening. So what?

···

===========================================================================

In traveling the path that led to PCT I have found ways to think about myself that lead me to comprehend that inside me is an Observer and Actor, and that it is I. The real I. The comprehension is one of the things my brain does, while I observe it happening. I have taught my brain how to think about the existence of this Observer, how to construct a model that has the properties necessary to embody intention and purpose. My "teaching" is, of course, a metaphor, one of Bruce Gregory's "stories", that attempts to capture the relationship between the Observer and the Observed in terms comprehensible by a brain, or at least by this brain through which I interact with everything else. I do this partly just for the satisfaction of seeing understanding grow inside of me, and partly because I sense that there are others like me who are also experiencing this situation and looking for ways to comprehend it and model it. Only rarely do I meet anyone who seems to lack this Observer-thingamajig.

Even those who seem to lack it, I am pretty sure now, have it or are it. But for their own highly-varied reasons they prefer not to take the responsibility for controlling their experiences in the way they do. In some cases, they do things that both they and other people might feel ashamed to do. But they can avoid the shame by finding external reasons for their own deeds -- market forces, for example, or God's Will, or Logic, or Evolution, or a history of reinforcements, or persecution by others. If my behavior is simply a result of laws of nature like self-preservation, or the effect of vast, mysterious forces beyond my control, or the only logical behavior, how can I be blamed for anything that circumstances force me to do? The bully says "I can't be blamed for beating you up -- if I didn't, you'd just go on irritating me."

I could go on but I think the point has been sufficiently elaborated.

Best,

Bill P.

[Martin Lewitt 2011 Sep 28 0722 MDT]

[From Bill Powers (2011.09.28.0530 MDT)]

Martin Lewitt 2011 Sep 28 0003 MDT

Just dipping briefly into this conversation ...

ML: Religious upbringing and military training, both seem successful at getting a large amount of buy-in or internalization of the ethics that they inculcate. Markets may also train by rewarding quality, a trustworthy reputation and customer service. Perhaps the ethics isn't truly internalized and people are just controlling, but I doubt that because humans are also are capable of detecting and punishing deception and appreciating sincerity and honesty.

There are people that turn in found money, they may be just controlling for their ethics, but I doubt they were just born different. I suspect their ethics came from training, perhaps the example of mentors they admire or the expectation of parents and not necessarily formal training.

BP: I wonder to what extent this system concept is behind many of the disagreements between conservative and liberals, or "scientific" cause-effect psychologists and PCTers. The subject is the principle of determinism: is anything a human being does the result of anything but external influences and genetic makeup? Training, rewards (and presumably punishments), mentoring, examples, markets, upbringing -- stimuli from outside. Throw in God's Will and Evolution. An inherited capacity, or God-given capacity, to know right from wrong.

In short, is there any actual person in this meat-and-bone machine? Or is that question I just asked the inevitable outcome of all the forces, natural and supernatural, that have acted on me in my past however far back you choose to trace the past?

If the latter is the case, then nothing we're saying matters. We're just saying these things because our inherited nature made or is making us say them, or perhaps market forces have given saying these things more influence than saying other things has done, or something reinforced the behaviors that produce these audible or visible words. If you say the environment determines my behavior, that is not because the environment actually determines my behavior, but because environmental forces add up to your saying that. Is that a self-contradiction? An irrelevant question. There can be no contradictions or paradoxes. Other forces might have made you or me vocalize or type differently. "It is what it is." There's no question of which statements are "correct" -- there's only cause and effect. Any statement is as "good" as another. Whatever we say, God knew and intended that we say it, for reasons beyond our comprehension. And I just said all that because it was inevitable that I say it. Am I right or wrong? And what made me ask that?

If there is no Actor, no Observer, nothing capable of intending or preferring or wishing, then this is all just empty neuromotor activity, self-negating and purposeless. It just happens, and then stops happening. So what?

I've had discussions with intelligent design believers who argue that if our mental processes are determined by physical laws, then we can't know if anything is true. Even our logical deductions may be flawed, if that is what the laws dictated, and we can't know that they were flawed. I think open ended programming is possible in both computers and living organisms. Genes and environment do determine who we are, but our decisions are determined by who we are. Would it be any more satisfying if our decisions were not characteristic of us? But also much of the causal strain that determined who we are flowed through us. Our own decisions determined our path histories and who we became in a complex and chaotic interaction with the environment. Western philosophy has not found an uncaused will to be any more satisfying than a caused one. Free will may be an illusion, but that doesn't mean that we don't have values, and weigh evidence. I think we do "control", but that we are not a blank slate.

===========================================================================

In traveling the path that led to PCT I have found ways to think about myself that lead me to comprehend that inside me is an Observer and Actor, and that it is I. The real I. The comprehension is one of the things my brain does, while I observe it happening. I have taught my brain how to think about the existence of this Observer, how to construct a model that has the properties necessary to embody intention and purpose. My "teaching" is, of course, a metaphor, one of Bruce Gregory's "stories", that attempts to capture the relationship between the Observer and the Observed in terms comprehensible by a brain, or at least by this brain through which I interact with everything else. I do this partly just for the satisfaction of seeing understanding grow inside of me, and partly because I sense that there are others like me who are also experiencing this situation and looking for ways to comprehend it and model it. Only rarely do I meet anyone who seems to lack this Observer-thingamajig.

But even so, don't you still find at times that the control of even just your own body by the observer is incomplete? I know that sticking to a diet is tough, decisions made with good intentions, often are overcome by impulses and cravings. I don't claim they are irresistable. Since they are a part of me, they are insidious, since eventually I temporarily will want them more than I want to stick to my more rational plan.

Even those who seem to lack it, I am pretty sure now, have it or are it. But for their own highly-varied reasons they prefer not to take the responsibility for controlling their experiences in the way they do. In some cases, they do things that both they and other people might feel ashamed to do. But they can avoid the shame by finding external reasons for their own deeds -- market forces, for example, or God's Will, or Logic, or Evolution, or a history of reinforcements, or persecution by others. If my behavior is simply a result of laws of nature like self-preservation, or the effect of vast, mysterious forces beyond my control, or the only logical behavior, how can I be blamed for anything that circumstances force me to do? The bully says "I can't be blamed for beating you up -- if I didn't, you'd just go on irritating me."

I don't presume to blame others for their behavior, but treating people as if they are responsible for their behavior has its benefits. Humans are rational enough to anticipate and consider consequences whether they are due to natural laws or social convention, or market responses. Blame or moral culpability are necessary in order to recognize that some people and animals are too dangerous to have around. Most people are vulnerable to corruption by power, collective identification, personality cults, logical fallacies, mob behavior, hypocrisy when anonymous, etc.

Martin L

···

On 9/28/2011 6:55 AM, Bill Powers wrote:

I could go on but I think the point has been sufficiently elaborated.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Chad Green (2011.09.28.1413 EDT)]

Bill, well said overall. I found the following statement most salient: "There can be no contradictions or paradoxes."

What if we replaced the word "no" with "only"? This change would reflect what I observe on a daily basis: that people in general have been conditioned to believe that information (i.e., the certainties of their creations) drives their engagement with the world rather than the other way around. Put another way, mankind has become "subdued by his instruments" as Emerson observed over 150 years ago (The American Scholar, 1837).

Another statement of yours also caught my attention: "There's no question of which statements are 'correct' -- there's only cause and effect."

I do not think in terms of correctness at all. Rather, I think in accordance with this incomplete phrase: "I can connect....

Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

Bill Powers <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET> 9/28/2011 8:55 AM >>>

[From Bill Powers (2011.09.28.0530 MDT)]

Martin Lewitt 2011 Sep 28 0003 MDT

Just dipping briefly into this conversation ...

ML: Religious upbringing and military training, both seem successful
at getting a large amount of buy-in or internalization of the ethics
that they inculcate. Markets may also train by rewarding quality,
a trustworthy reputation and customer service. Perhaps the ethics
isn't truly internalized and people are just controlling, but I
doubt that because humans are also are capable of detecting and
punishing deception and appreciating sincerity and honesty.

There are people that turn in found money, they may be just
controlling for their ethics, but I doubt they were just born
different. I suspect their ethics came from training, perhaps the
example of mentors they admire or the expectation of parents and not
necessarily formal training.

BP: I wonder to what extent this system concept is behind many of the
disagreements between conservative and liberals, or "scientific"
cause-effect psychologists and PCTers. The subject is the principle
of determinism: is anything a human being does the result of anything
but external influences and genetic makeup? Training, rewards (and
presumably punishments), mentoring, examples, markets, upbringing --
stimuli from outside. Throw in God's Will and Evolution. An inherited
capacity, or God-given capacity, to know right from wrong.

In short, is there any actual person in this meat-and-bone machine?
Or is that question I just asked the inevitable outcome of all the
forces, natural and supernatural, that have acted on me in my past
however far back you choose to trace the past?

If the latter is the case, then nothing we're saying matters. We're
just saying these things because our inherited nature made or is
making us say them, or perhaps market forces have given saying these
things more influence than saying other things has done, or something
reinforced the behaviors that produce these audible or visible words.
If you say the environment determines my behavior, that is not
because the environment actually determines my behavior, but because
environmental forces add up to your saying that. Is that a
self-contradiction? An irrelevant question. There can be no
contradictions or paradoxes. Other forces might have made you or me
vocalize or type differently. "It is what it is." There's no question
of which statements are "correct" -- there's only cause and effect.
Any statement is as "good" as another. Whatever we say, God knew and
intended that we say it, for reasons beyond our comprehension. And I
just said all that because it was inevitable that I say it. Am I
right or wrong? And what made me ask that?

If there is no Actor, no Observer, nothing capable of intending or
preferring or wishing, then this is all just empty neuromotor
activity, self-negating and purposeless. It just happens, and then
stops happening. So what?

···

===========================================================================

In traveling the path that led to PCT I have found ways to think
about myself that lead me to comprehend that inside me is an Observer
and Actor, and that it is I. The real I. The comprehension is one of
the things my brain does, while I observe it happening. I have taught
my brain how to think about the existence of this Observer, how to
construct a model that has the properties necessary to embody
intention and purpose. My "teaching" is, of course, a metaphor, one
of Bruce Gregory's "stories", that attempts to capture the
relationship between the Observer and the Observed in terms
comprehensible by a brain, or at least by this brain through which I
interact with everything else. I do this partly just for the
satisfaction of seeing understanding grow inside of me, and partly
because I sense that there are others like me who are also
experiencing this situation and looking for ways to comprehend it and
model it. Only rarely do I meet anyone who seems to lack this
Observer-thingamajig.

Even those who seem to lack it, I am pretty sure now, have it or are
it. But for their own highly-varied reasons they prefer not to take
the responsibility for controlling their experiences in the way they
do. In some cases, they do things that both they and other people
might feel ashamed to do. But they can avoid the shame by finding
external reasons for their own deeds -- market forces, for example,
or God's Will, or Logic, or Evolution, or a history of
reinforcements, or persecution by others. If my behavior is simply a
result of laws of nature like self-preservation, or the effect of
vast, mysterious forces beyond my control, or the only logical
behavior, how can I be blamed for anything that circumstances force
me to do? The bully says "I can't be blamed for beating you up -- if
I didn't, you'd just go on irritating me."

I could go on but I think the point has been sufficiently elaborated.

Best,

Bill P.

[Shannon Williams 2011.09.28 15:30 CST]

[Martin Lewitt 2011 Sep 28 0722 MDT]

I don't presume to blame others for their behavior, but treating people as
if they are responsible for their behavior has its benefits.

Do you mean responsible for their perceptions?

Thanks,
Shannon