Moral networks and decision making
If the idea that "individuals" do not make their decisions by themselves completely autonomously is true then the quality of an economic agent's moral decisions over time would be a function of or depend entirely on their access to a high quality moral network. A moral network is a resource (moral resource) which can be leveraged by a decision maker to make increasingly moral decisions over time.
So if we want people to adopt increasingly more moral behavior over time then we have to consider what moral networks are, how they form, how to increasingly make use of them, and how to create low barriers to entry for access and participation with them. Social networks aren't by default "moral" in that the focus of "social" is just communication without any moral intent. Moral communications are specifically about whether or not certain actions are "good" or "bad' according to the current consensus of the moral network.
And a moral network is a social network populated by "moral agents". These moral agents don't have to be biological persons but can be businesses, bots, institutions, communities or any other kind of agent which can either receive a question like "is it right or wrong to do X" or "what is your perception of the rightness or wrongness of this behavior"?
Access to higher quality moral networks produces higher quality moral decisions from decision makers
The decision makers rely on feedback loops. This is assuming the decision maker is attempting to be rational (as an economic agent in a market). In a market context a decision maker has the incentive to make increasing better decisions due to there being a potential competition between decision makers. Rewards according to social exchange theory can be social resources. In other words, the social rewards (as represented in behaviorism) dictate the "prizes" in these competitions to make increasingly higher quality decisions. People want to be right and avoid being wrong because the consequences of being wrong are a cost against the rewards of being right.
The human brain by itself is limited in it's ability to be rational. Fortunately the decision makers are not "human brains" alone. The decision maker is the process by which decisions are arrived at combined with the resources available. It works more like an algorithmic process which is why you can do decision analysis provided that the decision process is rational. Agents (including bots, humans, organizations, as service providers) can improve a decision making process and help any decision maker. In theory as the quality of and access to moral networks scale, then the decisions should also scale with it due to the decision support assets these moral networks provide to the decision makers.
In my view moral is ''internal'' OS, ethics is ''external'' network protocol.
Fair enough but even the internal was externally decided. Is there anything which you can think about which you can truly say is entirely your own or do you think in a language which was decided on before you were even born, taught to you, along with associated concepts?
The internal OS is what at best I can refer to as personal opinion ethics. Everyone has a personal opinion on anything. The actual behaviors do not map with personal opinions if the person is making behaviors with the ideal of seeking profit. Profit in the sense of a consequentialist would be simply to reduce the risk of punishment and increase social rewards. Profit to a deontologist could be something else, but according to what you believe in would influence what you consider to be your sense of profit.
And because the environment determines the results (consequences) of a decision this would also determine that sense of profit for people who think a certain way. So a question is do consequentialists have an "internal" other than "cost vs benefit analysis"? If there anything other than that?
nobody thinks 'in a language'. volution is post-factum. externally decided in a sense of input, ofc the switch formation and reconfig is causal. i avoid believing. and there is a feedback loop - sensory/from environment -> switch/states -> motoric/environmental modification.
Curated for #informationwar (by @truthforce)
Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 6,500 Steem Power + 12,000 Steem Power from the people following the curation trail to support our mission.
Join our discord and chat with 350+ fellow Informationwar Activists.
Join our brand new reddit! and start sharing your Steemit posts directly to The_IW, via the share button on your Steemit post!!!
Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Leadership/Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call
Ways you can help the @informationwar
@dana-edwards You have received a 100% upvote from @steemguardian because this post did not use any bidbots and you have not used bidbots in the last 30 days!
Upvoting this comment will help keep this service running.