The idea: Get the UN to get world leaders to agree on a moral philosophy.
Epistemic status: This is a somewhat rough idea. I know a decent bit about the fundamentals of game theory, namely in systems of power and warfare, but not nearly that much. I also donât have a great internal model of the world; itâs roughly that of a person who reads the news occasionally. I also havenât double-checked this idea that many times, and I havenât gotten feedback on it. We (or others) can most likely improve it.
Preface: Iâm mostly asking for feedback. I am also making this post so readers might implement of try to implement the idea. You, reading this right now: if you just want to know how to get this done, my suggestion would be to send this over to the UN or otherwise try to implement this specific idea.
Why this might be good: As I am sure you know, everyone makes decisions based on three things:
- The information they have,
- Their decision-making process (which is often assumed to be their values, such as in game theory, and when it comes to geopolitics, thereâs much less human error than in day-to-day life, so it should roughly be their values. and divergence from that is human error.)
- Their options.
This is because when a person decides something, they use the information they have (1) and their decision-making process (2), and ONLY based on those things do they choose one of their options (3).
Itâs abundantly clear why it would be good for world leaders to agree on what they value: said world leaders would always want the same thing, assuming they have the same or similar enough information and human error doesnât get in the way.
Why this might work: Most people are aligned not with their goals at the moment, but rather with their goals overall. Thatâs phrased a bit weirdly, so Iâll expand on it: Someone might be a Democrat at one time, but they probably wouldnât take a pill that made them always hold the opinions of a Democrat of that time.
- If this isnât caused by human error, it must be caused by their values.
- If their values only cared about their opinions and beliefs at that time, then they would take the pill.
- Since they likely wouldnât, their values must also care, in part, about their future opinions or beliefs.
In addition, most people wouldnât take a pill that made them highly addicted to ice cubes.
- If this isnât caused by human error, it must be caused by their values.
- If their values only care about satisfying whatever opinions and beliefs they have at the time, then they would take the pill since they could easily satisfy [the belief that they would hold, in the future] that eating ice cubes is extremely valuable by going to the fridge and grabbing a handful of ice cubes.
- Since they donât eat the cube, they must not entirely only care about whatever opinions and beliefs they hold at the time.
IF a person wouldnât take the pill in the first case, but would in the second, and IF it isnât caused by human error, then statements 3 and 6 MUST be satisfied.
In order to satisfy statements 3 and 6, said personâs true values could be many things. Three very reasonable possibilities are:
- They value doing good, and their beliefs and opinions change as they think about them more. (e.g., someone might switch from acting like a nihilist to acting like a utilitarian since that better aligns with their values. They allow THIS change because they know that some reasonable process caused said change. If they thought they would start going crazy soon, they might go through steps to stop a change in their values since they wouldnât trust the decision of a crazy person, even when the crazy person is them.)
- They care about making decisions based on logical reasoning and âreasonableâ values. Valuing ice cubes so highly is not âreasonableâ.
- More generally, they might have one overarching goal (for example, âdoing goodâ), and they change their opinions and beliefs to better align with that goal.
This may be the case for very impactful people, and so any change to their values, when based on logical reasoning (and with THEIR consent, so they know that it meets THEIR goals (since I donât think any of them are actually crazy, but I donât know. If they are crazy, though, or if they often succumb to human error, they still would likely only change their values with THEIR consent.)), they would be welcome!
In addition, not only would world leaders end up with moral values that are more logical, but they would end up with moral values that many more important people agree with!
In addition, world leaders might hold off on major decisions since they know that, on average, they would make a more educated decision after their moral values improve and align with others.
Why this might not work/factors that might cause this to not be implemented/factors that might make this a bad idea:
One major issue is that the process might be too slow. Maybe it wonât be! I honestly don't know. Maybe thereâs some study on how long it takes to change the mind of someone who sees their opinion as important, and that might be useful in determining how long this would take.
Another potential way this wouldn't work or be implemented is that many world leaders donât match the reasonable assumptions behind [the reasoning as to why it might work].
Another one is that it might be very hard to convince everybody that it is important, especially if we define âimportantâ more loosely, allowing more people to fit the description.
Now, presumably, since important people become more and less important over time, either due to them being elected, rising to power, resigning, dying, etc., this program would presumably continue throughout time (to get all the new world leaders and non-new world leaders to agree on a moral philosophy), or perhaps the UN would fully agree on one moral philosophy, or perhaps every few years world leaders and experts convene to decide if it should change, and if so, what it should change to. (This is one of the main ways this idea can be improved: âHow should this be implemented long-termâ?)
In addition, due to all the forces of corruption, people in power are disproportionately not morally aligned: someone who values being in office the longest would, on average, be in office longer than someone who wants to do good.
This can be counteracted by having some of these âforces of corruptionâ push towards being moral: moral world leaders might do better in a world filled with other moral world leaders than [immoral world leaders].
Furthermore, you donât need to value staying in power to stay in power or try to. Suppose youâre a world leader with some moral values. In that case, youâd want to stay in power when the alternative is less moral than you.
In addition to THIS, one of the main reasons moral world leaders do seemingly immoral things is to fend off less moral world leaders from taking their power. This force would be drastically counteracted by [the UN and most world leaders agreeing on a moral philosophy that they act upon.].
IN ADDITION, a person in a position of power could act the same way as an immoral version of themselves, except for when being moral doesn't have a noticeable effect on how much power they have. (This is practically the bare minimum, namely since it would mean that a program like this would only have an effect in those edge-cases.)
One glaring flaw is that it would be extremely difficult to land on the correct moral philosophy. Philosophers have been trying for years, and there still isnât a consensus! One counterargument to this is that it doesnât need to be the RIGHT moral philosophy; it just has to be GOOD ENOUGH to be better than the current status quo, which is much less difficult.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask!
I likely forgot about some variables that can be changed to make this idea better, as well as variables that could effect whether or not this is a good idea, so please let me know if you spot any, or if you know what those variables are âequal toâ. (that is, what should be adjusted, and what are the the real-world features that effect of this is a good or bad idea?)
it seems boggling at first glance that this would work, but in summary, it would work like this: Sometimes, in an argument, one or more sides doesnât care about reaching the RIGHT conclusion, they just care about it reaching a conclusion they approve of. This is often the difficulty with arguments.
However, when everyone is brought to the table and wants to reach the RIGHT conclusion, you find that the correct/RIGHT conclusion (seemingly) is arrived at much more often, is arrived at much faster, and as a bonus, the debate is much more respectful!
This project would basically bring world leaders to the table, where they would look for the RIGHT conclusion to major problems, which should lead to the correct/RIGHT conclusion (seemingly) is arrived at much more often, is arrived at much faster, and as a bonus, the debate is much more respectful!
There is sort of precedent for this: science used to be much more argumentative, and now, most of science is done in very intelligent ways, aimed at getting to the RIGHT answer, and not âtheir answerâ. This led to many, if not most or all, scientific problems being solved*.
In addition, if you aim to be a powerful scientist, fighting for âyour answerâ makes it much harder than it is if you were fighting for the RIGHT answer. Similarly, if this project worked well, it would be much harder to gain power if you fought for âyour valuesâ than if you fought for the RIGHT values!
I will note that most change of this scale doesnât arise from methods like this. This could aide in giving a rough sense of how likely this is to work. Hereâs some examples of things like this working:
And here are some examples of efforts that have required broader support:
(Note: this was all off the top of my head.)
Simple feedback: read this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845
Think about politics in Darwinian terms: who survives the process?
Iâm pretty sure thatâs on my book list, but thanks anyways! Iâd say I watched the equivelant of the âmovie versionâ (which is missing some things; namely, it doesn'thave much on how easy it is to replace keys) https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs (Sorry if this comes off as passive aggressive; it isn't. Itâs passive.)
Iâll edit the idea accordingly though.
Do you think the video is missing any other important points that the book doesnât?
Of course! The detailed historical examples. No amount of abstract knowledge can substitute historical discussion.
In fact the academic version (the logic of political survival) is for me less interesting, because it is too much based on data analysis instead of cases.
Thanks! Iâll give it a read (or, more realistically, a listen if thereâs an audiobook version.)
Maybe this would start its rollout on the most major world leaders first? And then, over time, more and more people get added to the program once weâre ready for them
One way to advertise this idea is that it reminds people of what the UN/UN charter was for, and that it is an improvement upon it.
If this worked, it would probably result in a major culture shift throughout most major institutions, which would help keep the program from falling apart, and would help incorporate new members.
Exact information on this is dependent on data on phycology and whatnot. If you know about that stuff, please let me know or add it here.
And a good culture (say, in the UN) can also help with this project's success. A bad one can result in this project being harder.
Also, if world leaders spend a lot of time surrounded by a particular culture (e.g., a month at some event), they might carry some of that culture over when they get back home, but also they re-assimilate into their home culture.
I will also note that the possibility of more morally misaligned actors might use the information that world leaders now agree on X moral values to their advantage, in order to do bad things. Perhaps this force is counteracted by more morally aligned people using such information to do good things!
A common strategy used to limit the effects of human error it to better account for it in models and whatnot, often by coming up with a value system that would make sense for any given set of decisions where some of them are due to human error. For example, in economics, one might say that a person ascribes inherent additional value to things that are on sale.
Another way is to try to make human error guide someone in a similar direction to logical decisions. For example, there is a major taboo against drug use in many areas, which supposedly decreases drug use when unnecessary.
More generally, a common strategy is to limit how much human error changes someoneâs decisions, on average.
Quick note: (Note taken while I am tired, so medium âparse-abilityâ): this program should be able to adjust to new ideas such that [an idea on how this program can be improved] can be implemented as soon as possible, perhaps without having to do an event. This is tricky for some ideas (e.g., how the event could be more fun). This would cause ideas to be implemented sooner, and also thereâs be less of a cost to do the program sooner, since you wouldnât be âmissingâ most important ideas. One idea that MIGHT satisfy this is: Part of the UN normal chat space (slack, discord, or whatever they use, if anything) was a philosophy section on what philosophy to go by and why, so the discussion can continue 24/7, and ideas for improvement can get implemented for the next day (or sooner).
A world leaderâs goals are probably adjustable one way or another. In the case where a world leader is committed to some values that depend on something (e.g., whatever is seen as âpatrioticâ, whatever their religion says (this only applies to some religions), changing those things changes their values. That might be very difficult for some value systems, but luckily [a commitment to the values of something that can easily change] has plenty of good logical arguments against them (https://youtu.be/wRHBwxC8b8I), which could be a better strategy to change someoneâs mind if they have such a commitment that is difficult to change, but for which one can change if they have such a commitment.
If you know about psychology or world leaders, please let me know how true this might be. If it isnât true, weâd have to work out how we might handle a world where only some people have their morals aligned. My first thought on this is that:
Maybe replacing the keys to power?
Supposedly, a more morally aligned global order might try to make itself more morally aligned. We only need this to work enough for it to sort itself out.
I imagine this would be implemented in a similar fashion ion to other UN programs when they started, but before that, we should work out key things that would change how or if the program should happen.
If anyone here knows any info that can help with this (e.g., Does any world leader have a commitment to their current values instead of their overall values?), please let me know in a comment, email, etc.
Message to any world leaders who arenât willing to change their values: If you can successfully stop this from happening if you tried, then it wouldnât work, so thereâs no point in trying to stop me. It would be comparable to voting in an election determined by peopleâs opinions, not by how they voted (the equivalent of writing on a random piece of paper, âI vote like so: __â).
I say this because in any scenario where, even assuming every world leader who has completely unwavering moral values tried really hard to stop our program AND cooperated with one another, IF such an effort would potentially be successful, then our program would fail.
To expand on that: If your efforts make the difference between our program succeeding and failing or otherwise affecting its success, we would have a huge incentive to ensure that this program isnât bad for you. This is because, if [you think it would be better for [your values] to try and prevent any given facet/part of our program], you would logically do so, and we donât want that, so we will make sure [You are happy with each of those facets of the program].
Basically, you donât need to stop our program. The threat that you might try to stop our program has the same effect.
If we can help you in a way that doesn't come at a cost to us (e.g., reschedule meetings so the time of the meetings work better for you), we will!
As an analogy, if you had the option to get rid of a country, then you donât have to worry about them being bad for you, because they have a massive incentive to be good for you: not getting destroyed.
Hereâs another analogy: Someone is making you food. You don't have to spend thousands of dollars to ensure that the person makes good food since you can simply throw the food away if the food does not taste good, and the person making the food already has a massive incentive to make food that tastes good to you: not getting the food thrown out.
All of this goes without saying, but saying it makes it clear.