Could we ever build a "moralometer" -- that is, an instrument that would accurately measure people's overall morality? If so, what would it take?
Psychologist Jessie Sun and I explore this question in our new paper in draft: "The Prospects and Challenges of Measuring Morality".
Comments and suggestions on the draft warmly welcomed!
Draft available here:
https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/nhvz9
Abstract:
The scientific study of morality requires measurement tools. But can we measure individual differences in something so seemingly subjective, elusive, and difficult to define? This paper will consider the prospects and challenges—both practical and ethical—of measuring how moral a person is. We outline the conceptual requirements for measuring general morality and argue that it would be difficult to operationalize morality in a way that satisfies these requirements. Even if we were able to surmount these conceptual challenges, self-report, informant report, behavioral, and biological measures each have methodological limitations that would substantially undermine their validity or feasibility. These challenges will make it more difficult to develop valid measures of general morality than other psychological traits. But, even if a general measure of morality is not feasible, it does not follow that moral psychological phenomena cannot or should not be measured at all. Instead, there is more promise in developing measures of specific operationalizations of morality (e.g., commonsense morality), specific manifestations of morality (e.g., specific virtues or behaviors), and other aspects of moral functioning that do not necessarily reflect moral goodness (e.g., moral self-perceptions). Still, it is important to be transparent and intellectually humble about what we can and cannot conclude based on various moral assessments—especially given the potential for misuse or misinterpretation of value-laden, contestable, and imperfect measures. Finally, we outline recommendations and future directions for psychological and philosophical inquiry into the development and use of morality measures.
[Below: a "moral-o-meter" given to me for my birthday a few years ago, by my then-13-year-old daughter]
6 comments:
One of the difficulties that struck me was the incommensurability of people's lives - not of morality, but just of the different decisions we all face.
So I wonder if this kind of thing offers a solution:
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/11/behavioral-economics-and-gpt-4-from-william-shakespeare-to-elena-ferrante.html
I haven't read the paper, but the authors apparently get ChatGPT to model literary characters, and then apply standarised tests to those characters.
With the amount of data we all pump online these days, it seems plausible that an AI clone of a person could be made fairly soon. And the clone could take whatever moralometer tests you might devise, allowing for proper comparability across people.
Is it phenomenal-ness is also noumenal-ness, usurped by observation...
...that ethical-moral-ness can be measurable only when as subjects in movement...
Also, observation (the objective of observation) is to see movement...
...planetary beings here, like all of nature, are subjects of laws and orderly-ness...
Thanks for the comments, folks!
Chinaphil: Fun post -- thanks for the link! The incommensurability of lives is an interesting issue. On the ChatGPT models, that's such a weird, creative idea. Obviously inaccurate and insufficient, but a super interesting direction of inquiry.
Arnold: That of course raises issues about free will and responsibility. A hard determinist might have objections to a moralometer similar to their objections to blame.
Then an example of nature's determinness could be attitudes...
...in balance and orders of balance from atomic to cosmic...
I have been reading about this notion for awhile, and have mixed thoughts. Just as we can't legislate morality, I don't see that we can measure it either. It can be argued that narcissists are among the least moral and most corrupt people on the face of the earth. But, what if a narcissistic philanthrope contributes countless altruistic dollars (or, rubles) towards the well-being of those less fortunate? One the private side, he is still a self-centered reprobate, while, publicly, he does measurable good.
I have the same sense of consciousness in AI. But, that is getting stale. For me, anyway.
Thanks for the comment, Paul. I agree measurement and conceptual questions are huge here -- maybe irresolvable. The question of what to do with the narcissistic altruist is a great case in point.
Post a Comment