> arrangements like capitalism and democracy channel conflicts into formats that are productive (like business competition and political campaigning) rather than destructive (like theft or violence)
This distinction between productive and destructive conflict seems more normatively important than either coherence or well-foundedness; would love to see it expanded on.
Successful coalitional agents are defined more by their ability to channel internal conflict constructively than by being particularly well-founded or coherent: e.g. the Roman Republic, UK, US, Elon.
Great article, Richard! Yep, the whole ethics can be expressed with a binary trees as the minimal model. Infinitesimal agents can do nothing, grow left, right or both ways. This way they make one of 4 choices.
They interact in one of 3 ways: give freedom (give space to grow to another/let another choose/help another), do nothing or take freedom (force something on another). We are writing this computation ethics paper to solve alignment from the bottom up.
45 pages with ~20 graphs done already, I can send you the draft, we need co-authors!)
Would the price system be an example of well-foundedness? In the economy, conflict between two economic agents over a scarce resource doesn't propagate down to conflict within either economic agent.
When you mention that you don't yet know how to define well-roundedness, I think this is where a formal logic model would work perfectly in both a descriptive and predictive manner to show the effects of well-roundedness and coherence to the future of an organisation.
> arrangements like capitalism and democracy channel conflicts into formats that are productive (like business competition and political campaigning) rather than destructive (like theft or violence)
This distinction between productive and destructive conflict seems more normatively important than either coherence or well-foundedness; would love to see it expanded on.
Successful coalitional agents are defined more by their ability to channel internal conflict constructively than by being particularly well-founded or coherent: e.g. the Roman Republic, UK, US, Elon.
Great article, Richard! Yep, the whole ethics can be expressed with a binary trees as the minimal model. Infinitesimal agents can do nothing, grow left, right or both ways. This way they make one of 4 choices.
They interact in one of 3 ways: give freedom (give space to grow to another/let another choose/help another), do nothing or take freedom (force something on another). We are writing this computation ethics paper to solve alignment from the bottom up.
45 pages with ~20 graphs done already, I can send you the draft, we need co-authors!)
By the way, we recently solved AI alignment with the top down approach: https://open.substack.com/pub/melonusk/p/notes-on-euto-principles-and-tenets?r=5d055t&utm_medium=ios
Would the price system be an example of well-foundedness? In the economy, conflict between two economic agents over a scarce resource doesn't propagate down to conflict within either economic agent.
When you mention that you don't yet know how to define well-roundedness, I think this is where a formal logic model would work perfectly in both a descriptive and predictive manner to show the effects of well-roundedness and coherence to the future of an organisation.