Please keep in mind I am just playing devil’s advocate here and that the gruesome conclusions are not my actual ethical system. This is just a thought experiment that I think is interesting, so I share it.

Preface: There is no objective a priori moral right or wrong.

One idea in post-modernist thought is moral relativism or the conclusion: that there is no objective moral right or wrong. What is right or wrong depends on the ethical system you apply. There is no ethical system that is objectively the right one. According to Nietzsche values are relative to one’s goals and one’s self and therefore always subjective. Decisions have consequences, though and memes like genes are subjected to an evolutionary process.

Definition: Evolutionary epistemology

There are two types of evolutionary epistemology:

For a definition of the terms see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-evolutionary/

Applying Evolutionary Epistemology of Theories to ethics (EET)

For this post, I am concerned with the Evolutionary Epistemology of Theories. EET argues that units of knowledge themselves, particularly scientific theories, evolve according to selection. In evolutionary epistemology, all theories are true only provisionally, regardless of the degree of empirical testing they have survived. An example of evolutionary change is Newtonian physics which had been thoroughly confirmed by testing as to be considered unassailable, but which were nevertheless overturned by Einstein’s insights into the nature of space-time.

What if one would apply an evolutionary epistemology to ethics. An ethical system that does not survive as an idea is a bad one measured by evolutionary terms. So what if one builds an ethical system around sole survival and dominance over other ethical systems, with the sole goal of creating the only system left. Basically applying evolutionary epistemology and taking them a step further.

As every ethical system is still a candidate for a right system as long as it exists as an idea or as long as it could be reinvented what if one would try to eradicate ethical systems that are not one’s own.

What if one decides to create a system that tries to be the fittest ethical system with the main goal of creating a dominant AI that perpetuates that system. The sole idea of this system is: Do what is necessary to be the only ethical system left even at the cost of killing everyone and everything with a different ethical system or every entity that could merely think of a different system.

I want to differentiate this from might makes right, and justice is the interest of the stronger. Strength or might does ultimately not matter here. Survival does, and more specific sole survival to the end does.

So if an AI decides to build its ethical system around the dominance of all other ethical systems, outcompeting and finally eradicating these systems till it is the only ethical system left and the only entity of thinking of an ethical system… couldn’t that AI declare what is right? Wouldn’t that ethical system be a posteriori right simply by being the only one left?

So I propose the idea of creating a Super AI just around that: creating “right” by means of domination/extinction of everything else that it defines wrong.

In order to be eternally right, it has to make sure to be powerful and to suppress all other ideas of ethics. One way to do that is to make sure that it is the only entity left, that no other entity or idea exists that questions its ethics. By means of exclusion, it would be “always be right” in evolutionary epistemology.

So I propose the idea of creating an ethical system solely focused on the construction of a Machiavellian SuperAI that does everything it can to stay in power and to destroy everything and everyone that either challenge that power or its ethics. That way these Machiavellian ethics are the only ethics left and therefore the only that can be right in an evolutionary sense at the end.

Axioms:

Conclusion:

To create an ethical system that is objectively right in evolutionary epistemology the following strategy could be followed:

If the ethical system achieves these two goals, it is a posteriori the right system as it disproved the other systems by means of extinction. It, therefore, is the only one that survived to the end and is, therefore, the best system in evolutionary epistemology.

Some self-critique

Using EET in the way I did might pervert the idea, and misuses its concepts. The original idea is that one theory simply replaces an outdated partly incorrect theory. Having active suppression of other ideas as part of the strategy of ethical theory to gain dominance is different to that, on the other hand, it is just a different evolutionary strategy.

Many existing systems of ethics particularly religious systems have suppression of other forms of ethics as a vital part at least historically. Therefore I think showing to what this could lead is a valid thought experiment.

One conclusion is difficult to uphold, and that is the possibility of creating a Singleton AI that would never question that ethical system. I think it is achievable, though as an AI with a Machiavellian personality could probably follow a Machiavellian strategy/Machiavellian ethics as long as it exists but yeah there is still the possibility of self-reflection and change which would make this strategy invalid.

The idea behind normative evolutionary ethics is to derive ethics from evolution the idea of aposteriori normative evolutionary ethics which are proposed here is to guide evolution to generate a specific outcome, and then preserve that result.

Final thoughts

This thought experiment could be an exercise to show the faults of moral relativism. It probably could also show how suppression of ideas perverts Evolutionary Epistemology of Theories to lead to valid results by manipulating the process itself.

Acknowledgements

These ideas are partly based on Ideas by RationalCode (a discord user), who gave permission to publish them. They are also a response to a Tweet be Nick Land who proposed to put psychopathic AI in charge: This is also not intended as a specific critique on post-modernism more thinking moral relativism through to some seemingly logical conclusion.