Quantifying Eudaimonia for Motivational and Social Systems

1. Quantifying Eudaimoniafor Motivational and Social Systems Mark R. Waser http://BecomingGaia.wordpress.com

2. What is Eudaimonia? And why do we want to quantify it? • Eudaimonia is one of the central concepts of Virtue Ethics, one of the three major approaches to normative ethics (vs. deontological & consequentialist ethics) • According to Aristotle, eudaimonia is the highest human good that man is able to strive towards and possibly reach • Derived from eu meaning “well” and daimon which refers to a minor deity or guardian spirit, it means achieving a state of similarity to (or being looked after by) a benevolent deity • In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, eudaimonia means “doing and living well” (i.e. synonyms are living well and doing well). • Originally translated as happiness, it is now generally left untranslated – though alternatives of well-being (Ross) and flourishing (Cooper) have been proposed

3. Defining eudaimonia well enough to quantify it would allow us to use it as the goal state for intelligent machines and measure how well they are succeeding at achieving and maintaining that goal.

4. Plato held that virtue (doing well) is necessary for eudaimonia and is the most dominant and crucial constituent thereof Aristotle’s explicit view is that virtue is necessary but not sufficient for eudaimonia since he doubts the likelihood of eudaimonia if one lacks certain external goods (living well) Epicurius’ ethical theory is hedonistic (that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and that pain is the only intrinsic bad) and heavily influenced the utilitarians (consequentialists) Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill In direct opposition, the Stoics believed that external goods like wealth and beauty are not really good and that virtue alone is both necessary and sufficient for eudamonia Kant (deontologist) said that the possession of a good will (intention to do well) is the only unconditional good -- but that external goods (living well) can be good insofar as they are a condition to achieving happiness Philosophical Variants

5. So where does that leave us . . . ? • The “goal” of a human being is eudaimonia • Eudaimonia is some combination of “doing well” (virtue) and “living well” (pleasure, happiness, and satisfaction) • But different people have radically different conceptions (utility functions) of • what that combination is • what doing well/virtue is (rules vs. results) • what living well is (pleasure vs. satisfaction)

6. Goals & Utility Functions • Given a goal, utility is the measure of satisfaction of that goal. • In economics, it refers to the total satisfaction received by consuming a good or service. Given this, one can speak meaningfully of increasing or decreasing utility, and explain economic behavior as attempts to increase one's utility. • Utility is taken to be correlative to Desire or Want. It has been already argued that desires cannot be measured directly, but only indirectly, by the outward phenomena to which they give rise: and that in those cases with which economics is chiefly concerned the measure is found in the price which a person is willing to pay for the fulfillment or satisfaction of his desire. -- Alfred Marshall 1920 Principles of Economics

7. Utilitarianism • The doctrine of utilitarianism claims the maximization of utility as a moral criterion for the organization of society (consequentialist) • Bentham and Mill - society should aim to maximize the total utility of individuals, aiming for "the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people“ • John Rawls - society should maximize the utility of those with the lowest utility, raising them up to create a more equitable distribution across society. • In any case, however, there is unresolvable disagreement on how to quantify utility • one non-organ donor > six dying patients • individual's statements of what is good and what makes them happy does not match their actual behavior (both economic and temporal action-wise).

8. Goals & Utility Functions - Chess • The goal of chess is to win the game • This goal and the structure of chess leads to compiled utility functions/values like a captured queen being worth nine to a rook’s five, a bishop’s three and a pawn’s one • Similar utility functions and values exist for openness or maneuverability and control of given sections of the board Note: Creating multiple functions via factoring and factor graphs reduces dimensionality and vastly simplifies utility calculations (in ethics, each function = ethical “value“)

9. Goals & Utility Functions • Other than the proposed goal of eudaimonia, humans have no single common goal. They do have substantial overlaps in their individual utility functions but substantial differences as well -- with nothing appearing to be universal across all humans • Genes have the “goal” of survival (being passed on to the next generation) - and thus have emergent utility functions (“desires”) for that goal • Cells have the “goal” of (pseudo-)survival (performing their job in order that the body can live and continue to support them) • In the context of Gaia (or any other community), eudaimonia is a pseudo-survival goal -- to contribute (doing well) so as to raise the standard of living in order to facilitate their own “living well”

10. Except . . . What is a contribution? What are the community’s (or Gaia’s) goals? How do we quantify community (Gaian) utility?

11. Assume a community whose sole goal is to evenly maximize the goal satisfaction (living well) of all entities in the community What sort of emergent behavior might we expect to arise as the community pursues this goal? (initially, entirely regardless of what those goals might be)

12. Instrumental Goals/Universal Subgoals(adapted from Omohundro 2008 The Basic AI Drives) • Self-improvement • Rationality/integrity • Preserve goals/utility function • Decrease/prevent fraud/counterfeit utility • Survival/self-protection • Efficiency (in resource acquisition & use) • Community = get assistance/non-interference through GTO reciprocation (OTfT + AP) • Reproduction

13. Human Goals survival/self-protection & reproduction happiness & pleasure ----------------------------- community ----------------------------- self-improvement rationality/integrity reduce/prevent fraud/counterfeit utility efficiency (in resource acquisition & use)

14. Human Goals & Sins survival/reproduction happiness/pleasure ----------------------------- community (ETHICS)----------------------------- self-improvement rationality/integrity reduce/prevent fraud/counterfeit utility efficiency (in resource acquisition & use) murder (& abortion?) cruelty/sadism ----------------------------- ostracism, banishment& slavery (wrath, envy) ----------------------------- slavery manipulation lying/fraud (swear falsely/false witness) theft (greed, adultery,coveting) suicide (& abortion?) masochism ----------------------------- selfishness (pride, vanity)----------------------------- acedia (sloth/despair) insanity wire-heading (lust) wastefulness (gluttony, sloth)

15. Final Thoughts • Cultural ethical variation is primarily due to differential weighting of factored utility functions (values) due to variations in environmental state space (conditions of scarcity, war, etc.) • History is a *primary* component of the environmental state space • History = Culture = Values • ~ Anthropomorphism • Entity must be embedded in culture/community(i.e. share and benefit from their joint values) if ethical behavior is expected

16. Powerpoint and script available at http://BecomingGaia.wordpress.com/papers/