David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics and Information Technology 9 (1):39-47 (2007)
There has been considerable discussion in the past about the assumptions and basis of different ethical rules. For instance, it is commonplace to say that ethical rules are defaults rules, which means that they tolerate exceptions. Some authors argue that morality can only be grounded in particular cases while others defend the existence of general principles related to ethical rules. Our purpose here is not to justify either position, but to try to model general ethical rules with artificial intelligence formalisms and to compute logical consequences of different ethical theories. More precisely, this is an attempt to show that progress in non-monotonic logics, which simulates default reasoning, could provide a way to formalize different ethical conceptions. From a technical point of view, the model developed in this paper makes use of the Answer Set Programming (ASP) formalism. It is applied comparatively to different ethical systems with respect to their attitude towards lying. The advantages of such formalization are two-fold: firstly, to clarify ideas and assumptions, and, secondly, to use solvers to derive consequences of different ethical conceptions automatically, which can help in a rigorous comparison of ethical theories.
|Keywords||Answer Set Programming (ASP) categorical imperative computational ethics default logic non-monotonic logic|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Jean-Gabriel Ganascia (2010). Epistemology of AI Revisited in the Light of the Philosophy of Information. Knowledge, Technology and Policy 23 (1-2):57-73.
Similar books and articles
George D. Cameron (2004). The Intersection of Law and Ethics – at 600 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA: Is It Ethical to Assert a Legal Technicality to Avoid Liability for a Debt Created by Fraud? Journal of Business Ethics 49 (2):107 - 113.
Monroe H. Freedman (1984). Lawyer‐Client Confidences Under the A.B.A. Model Rules: Ethical Rules Without Ethical Reason. Criminal Justice Ethics 3 (2):3-8.
Russ Shafer-Landau (1997). Moral Rules. Ethics 107 (4):584-611.
Eugene C. Hargrove (1985). The Role of Rules in Ethical Decision Making. Inquiry 28 (1-4):3 – 42.
Larry Z. Leslie (1992). Lying in Prime Time: Ethical Egoism in Situation Comedies. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 7 (1):5 – 18.
Robert A. Kowalski & Francesca Toni (1996). Abstract Argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):275-296.
Terri L. Herron & David L. Gilbertson (2004). Ethical Principles Vs. Ethical Rules. Business Ethics Quarterly 14 (3):499-523.
Benjamin Sachs (2011). Going From Principles to Rules in Research Ethics. Bioethics 25 (1):9-20.
Benjamin Sachs (2010). The Case for Evidence-Based Rulemaking in Human Subjects Research. American Journal of Bioethics 10 (6):3-13.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #224,261 of 1,098,844 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #174,745 of 1,098,844 )
How can I increase my downloads?