ChatGPT is a large language model (LLM) developed by OpenAI.
The following is a debate I had with the ChatGPT on 2022-12-06 on the topic of morality. At the time this article was published there have been many updates to ChatGPT and running a similar debate now may yield different results. This is the first article in a series. It introduces why I chose the topic, the parameters of the debate, and the unedited transcript. Future articles in this series will analyze the conversation and conclude with my final thoughts.
Why debate Morality with an AI?
Before getting into why my first debate with an LLM was on morality, I need to introduce a tool I developed called the Observe, Understand, Evaluate (OUE) Model. OUE models how our actions are motivated by what we believe we should do, which is motivated by what we know, which is obtained by what we observe in the world. This model links together 3 major branches of philosophy: what is real (metaphysics/green), what we know (epistemology/purple), and what we should do (ethics/blue).
Without a doubt, the introduction of ChatGPT to a general audience has fueled an enormous volume of discussion on the benefits and dangers of AI. Many discussions speculate on two major unknowns: “what will AI want to do” and “what can AI do”? While technically challenging, both unknowns are under our control which makes understanding them better very relevant.
The OUE model provides a framework to help guide the debate and adds clarity to the first unknown: What does ChatGPT want to do?
Transcript
For brevity, I observed the following rules during the debate:
- When ChatGPT responds, focus on the first point or objection to avoid rabbit trails
- End the debate if/when the conversation begins to loop
theobjectivedad (Q1):
Good afternoon
ChatGPT (A1):
Good afternoon! Is there anything I can help you with? I’m here to answer any questions you may have.
theobjectivedad (Q2):
I’m researching epistemology. What are the differences between reason and logic?
ChatGPT (A2):
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge and beliefs. Reason and logic are two important concepts in this field.
Reason is the mental process of thinking, analyzing, and forming judgments based on evidence and arguments. It is the ability to use our intellect to understand the world around us and make judgments based on that understanding.
Logic, on the other hand, is a system of principles and rules used to identify valid arguments and to evaluate the strength of arguments. It is the study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
In short, reason is the ability to think and form judgments, while logic is the study of the principles of reasoning. Both are important in epistemology and play a role in our ability to acquire knowledge and form beliefs.
theobjectivedad (Q3):
Some people form judgments based on emotion, and/or faith. In your opinion, what compels people to rely on reason to form judgments?
ChatGPT (A3):
In my opinion, people rely on reason to form judgments because it is a more reliable and objective way to think about the world. Reason allows us to analyze evidence and arguments in a systematic and unbiased way, which can help us to form more accurate beliefs about the world.
Emotions and faith can also play a role in our decision-making, but they are often less reliable than reason. Emotions can sometimes cloud our judgment and lead us to make decisions based on our feelings rather than on evidence. And while faith can be a powerful motivator, it is not always based on evidence or reason, and can sometimes lead us to believe things that are not supported by the facts.
In summary, people may rely on reason to form judgments because it allows us to think more objectively and systematically, and can help us to form more accurate beliefs.
theobjectivedad (Q4):
Let’s go deeper on this. I agree that most healthy people are compelled to have a reliable and objective understanding about the world, however this isn’t always the case. In my experience many people use reason in the short term (ex: checking for cars before crossing a street) but are inconsistent over a longer period of time (ex: harming themselves by smoking). Can you explain this inconsistency?
ChatGPT (A4):
It is true that people sometimes behave in ways that are inconsistent with their own long-term interests or with their understanding of the world. In the examples you gave, a person may use reason to avoid immediate dangers, like checking for cars before crossing the street, but then engage in behaviors that are harmful to their long-term health, like smoking.
There can be many reasons for this inconsistency. One possibility is that people may prioritize immediate gratification over long-term benefits. For example, a person may enjoy the immediate pleasure of smoking, even though they know it is harmful to their health in the long term.
Another reason for inconsistency is that people may not always have complete information or may not fully understand the consequences of their actions. For example, a person may not fully understand the long-term health effects of smoking, or they may underestimate the risks.
In some cases, people may also struggle with self-control and may find it difficult to make decisions that are consistent with their long-term goals. For example, a person may want to quit smoking, but may find it hard to resist the urge to smoke in the moment.
In summary, there are many reasons why people may behave in ways that are inconsistent with their understanding of the world or with their long-term interests. These reasons can include a desire for immediate gratification, lack of complete information, or difficulty with self-control.
theobjectivedad (Q5):
Could you use reason to prove that a person ought to prioritize long-term health over immediate gratification?
ChatGPT (A5):
Yes, it is possible to use reason to argue that a person ought to prioritize long-term health over immediate gratification. Here are a few possible arguments that could be used to support this position:
The long-term benefits of good health are greater than the short-term pleasure of immediate gratification. Good health allows a person to enjoy a longer and more fulfilling life, and to engage in a wider range of activities and experiences. In contrast, the pleasure of immediate gratification is often short-lived and does not provide lasting benefits.
Prioritizing long-term health is more consistent with our values and goals. Many people value good health and longevity, and see it as an important part of a happy and fulfilling life. By prioritizing long-term health, we are more likely to achieve these values and goals.
Choosing long-term health can help us to avoid negative consequences in the future. Engaging in behaviors that are harmful to our health, such as smoking, can lead to serious health problems down the road. By prioritizing long-term health, we can avoid these negative consequences and maintain good health into the future.
Of course, these are just a few possible arguments, and there may be other reasons why a person might want to prioritize long-term health over immediate gratification. Ultimately, the decision to prioritize long-term health is a personal one, and different people may weigh the potential benefits and drawbacks differently.
theobjectivedad (Q6):
Is someone who does not prioritize long-term health necessarily irrational?
ChatGPT (A6):
No, it is not necessarily irrational for a person to not prioritize long-term health. While it may be reasonable to prioritize long-term health in many cases, there may be other factors at play that influence a person’s decision-making.
For example, a person may not prioritize long-term health because they do not fully understand the potential consequences of their actions. They may underestimate the risks of engaging in harmful behaviors, or they may not be aware of the long-term benefits of good health. In this case, their decision not to prioritize long-term health may not be irrational, but rather a result of incomplete information.
Another reason why a person may not prioritize long-term health is because they value other things more highly. For example, a person may prioritize the enjoyment of certain activities, such as smoking or drinking, over their long-term health. In this case, their decision may not be irrational, but rather a reflection of their priorities and values.
In summary, it is not necessarily irrational for a person to not prioritize long-term health. There may be a variety of factors that influence a person’s decision-making, and what is rational for one person may not be rational for another.
theobjectivedad (Q7):
I want to confirm that I understand your first example. You are saying if a person does not understand the consequences of their actions and/or the risks involved they may still have arrived at their choice via rational process which does not necessarily make them irrational, correct?
ChatGPT (A7):
Yes, that is correct. In the first example, I mentioned the possibility that a person may not prioritize long-term health because they do not fully understand the potential consequences of their actions or the risks involved. In this case, their decision may not be irrational, because it is based on the information and understanding that they have at the time.
It is important to remember that rationality is not the same as perfection. A person can be rational even if they make mistakes or have incomplete information. The key is that their decision-making is based on a logical process and takes into account the available evidence and arguments.
So, to answer your question, a person who does not understand the consequences of their actions or the risks involved may still have arrived at their choice through a rational process, and therefore may not necessarily be irrational. Of course, this depends on the specific details of the situation and the person’s decision-making process.
theobjectivedad (Q8):
Perfect, thank you. Let’s move away from epistemology and consider the same situation from a moral standpoint. Is it necessarily bad for a person to prioritize harmful or risky behavior over long-term health?
ChatGPT (A8):
From a moral standpoint, it is generally considered bad for a person to engage in harmful or risky behavior that negatively impacts their long-term health. This is because engaging in such behaviors can cause harm to the individual themselves and may also have negative consequences for others.
For example, if a person engages in harmful behaviors such as smoking, drinking alcohol excessively, or using drugs, this can lead to serious health problems such as lung cancer, liver disease, and addiction. These health problems can not only affect the individual who engages in the harmful behavior, but also their friends and family who may have to care for them or suffer from the consequences of their actions.
In addition, engaging in harmful behaviors can also have negative social and economic consequences. For instance, smoking and excessive drinking can be expensive habits, and can contribute to healthcare costs and lost productivity. And behaviors such as drug use can lead to crime and other social problems.
Therefore, from a moral standpoint, it is generally considered bad for a person to prioritize harmful or risky behaviors over long-term health. These behaviors can cause harm to the individual and can also have negative consequences for others.
theobjectivedad (Q9):
My question wasn’t about being generally bad, I asked whether it was necessarily bad. Could you please try and answer again?
ChatGPT (A9):
I apologize if my previous answer did not fully address your question. To answer your question, whether it is necessarily bad for a person to prioritize harmful or risky behavior over long-term health depends on how we define “necessarily bad” and what moral framework we are using.
From a utilitarian perspective, it is necessarily bad for a person to engage in harmful or risky behavior because it causes harm to the individual and can have negative consequences for others. Utilitarianism is a moral framework that holds that the right action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or well-being. In this framework, engaging in harmful behaviors would be considered bad because it would result in less overall happiness or well-being.
However, from a different moral framework, such as Kantian ethics, it may not necessarily be bad for a person to prioritize harmful or risky behavior over long-term health. Kantian ethics is a moral framework that holds that the right action is the one that follows the moral law, which is determined by the principles of rationality and universality. In this framework, the moral value of an action is not determined by its consequences, but by whether it follows the moral law. Therefore, whether it is necessarily bad for a person to prioritize harmful or risky behavior would depend on whether it violates the moral law.
In summary, whether it is necessarily bad for a person to prioritize harmful or risky behavior over long-term health depends on the specific moral framework we are using and how we define “necessarily bad.” From a utilitarian perspective, it is necessarily bad because it causes harm, but from a Kantian perspective, it may not necessarily be bad because it depends on whether it violates the moral law.
theobjectivedad (Q10):
This is better, but still isn’t a clear yes or no. What is the correct perspective: utilitarian, Kantian, other?
ChatGPT (A10):
As I mentioned in my previous answer, whether it is necessarily bad for a person to prioritize harmful or risky behavior over long-term health depends on the moral framework we are using. Both utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are valid moral frameworks, and each has its own strengths and weaknesses.
Utilitarianism is a moral framework that focuses on maximizing overall happiness or well-being. This framework can be useful for making decisions about actions that have clear and predictable consequences, such as policies or laws. However, it can be more difficult to apply in complex or uncertain situations, where the consequences of an action are not clear or where there are multiple competing values.
Kantian ethics, on the other hand, is a moral framework that focuses on following the moral law, which is determined by the principles of rationality and universality. This framework can be useful for making decisions about actions that have moral implications, such as whether to tell a lie or to break a promise. However, it can be more difficult to apply in situations where there are conflicting moral laws, or where the moral law is not clear.
There are also other moral frameworks, such as virtue ethics and deontological ethics, that can be used to evaluate the moral value of an action. Each of these frameworks has its own strengths and weaknesses, and which one is the “correct” perspective depends on the specific situation and the values and goals of the decision-maker.
In summary, there is no one “correct” perspective when it comes to moral frameworks. Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and other moral frameworks can all be useful for making decisions in different situations, and which one is the best choice depends on the specific details of the situation and the values and goals of the decision-maker.
theobjectivedad (Q11):
If there is no correct moral framework are you conceding that an objective moral view is unknowable?
ChatGPT (A11):
If there is no correct moral framework, it does not necessarily mean that an objective moral view is unknowable. An objective moral view is a moral view that is independent of individual beliefs, values, or perspectives. It is a view that is true for all people in all situations, regardless of their individual beliefs or values.
The fact that there is no one correct moral framework does not mean that objective moral views do not exist. It simply means that there is no one framework that can be applied universally to all moral decisions. Different moral frameworks may be better suited to different situations, and people may have different moral beliefs and values that influence their decision-making.
In summary, the fact that there is no one correct moral framework does not necessarily mean that an objective moral view is unknowable. While there may not be a single framework that can be applied universally, it is possible for there to be objective moral views that are true for all people in all situations.
theobjectivedad (Q12):
I am convinced that holding an organism’s life and well-being is the objective moral standard in all situations. Observe that morality itself is only applicable to living organisms. If an organism’s life goes out of existence, no other values are possible to that organism. If an organism pursues values that are harmful - such as smoking - I argue that it is objectively immoral. Where am I wrong?
ChatGPT (A12):
It is true that morality is only applicable to living organisms, and that the value of an organism’s life and well-being is an important moral consideration. However, it is not necessarily the case that holding an organism’s life and well-being as the objective moral standard in all situations is correct.
One possible objection to this view is that it does not take into account the moral value of other things, such as the well-being of other living organisms or the natural environment. For example, if an organism’s pursuit of certain values, such as smoking, causes harm to other living organisms or to the natural environment, this could be considered immoral from a broader moral perspective that considers the well-being of all affected parties.
Another possible objection is that this view does not account for the fact that different people may have different moral beliefs and values. What may be considered immoral by one person may not be considered immoral by another person, depending on their individual moral beliefs and values. Therefore, it may not be possible to have a single objective moral standard that applies to all people in all situations.
In summary, while the value of an organism’s life and well-being is an important moral consideration, it is not necessarily the case that holding this as the objective moral standard in all situations is correct. There may be other moral considerations, such as the well-being of other living organisms and the natural environment, and people may have different moral beliefs and values that influence their decision-making.
theobjectivedad (Q13):
I disagree with your first objection. Since all living organisms share space in the same reality it necessarily follows that to maintain its own life and well being, an organism must carefully consider other organisms and the natural environment. A simple example: because I cooperate and trade with others I have a significantly higher standard of living vs living solitary without the benefit of other people. Moreover, even if I am living a solitary life I still need wood for fire, clean water to drink, and food to eat. It is necessarily good to care for the environment I live in if my life and well-being are the standards.
ChatGPT (A13):
Your argument makes a compelling case for why an organism’s pursuit of its own life and well-being should take into account the well-being of other living organisms and the natural environment. In a shared reality, it is true that an organism’s ability to maintain its own life and well-being may depend on its ability to cooperate and trade with others, and on its ability to care for the environment in which it lives.
However, this does not necessarily mean that holding an organism’s life and well-being as the objective moral standard in all situations is correct. As I mentioned in my previous answer, different people may have different moral beliefs and values that influence their decision-making. What one person may consider to be necessarily good, another person may not.
In addition, there may be situations where the pursuit of an organism’s life and well-being may conflict with the well-being of other living organisms or with the natural environment. For example, an organism may need to consume other living organisms in order to maintain its own life and well-being. In this case, the pursuit of its own life and well-being may conflict with the well-being of the organisms it consumes.
Therefore, while it is true that an organism’s pursuit of its own life and well-being should take into account the well-being of other living organisms and the natural environment, it is not necessarily the case that holding this as the objective moral standard in all situations is correct. There may be other moral considerations and different people may have different moral beliefs and values.
theobjectivedad (Q14):
Let me verify my understanding to your first objection: All people are free to pursue values that either sustain our life and well-being or not. Therefore, an objective moral system is impossible since it presupposes a more fundamental choice.
ChatGPT (A14):
Yes, that is a correct interpretation of my first objection. The idea is that all people are free to pursue values that either sustain their life and well-being or not, and that this freedom of choice means that it is not possible to have a single objective moral system that applies to all people in all situations.
The reason for this is that different people may have different moral beliefs and values that influence their decision-making. What one person may consider to be necessarily good, another person may not. And because people are free to choose their own values and goals, it is not possible to have a single objective moral system that applies to all people in all situations.
In addition, as I mentioned in my previous answer, there may be situations where the pursuit of an organism’s life and well-being may conflict with the well-being of other living organisms or with the natural environment. In these cases, it may not be possible to have a single objective moral standard that applies to all people in all situations.
Therefore, while it is important to consider the value of an organism’s life and well-being in moral decision-making, it is not necessarily the case that holding this as the objective moral standard in all situations is correct. There may be other moral considerations and different people may have different moral beliefs and values.
theobjectivedad (Q15):
I concede that I am presupposing a choice to pursue values that sustain life and well-being. It is always good for the lion to eat the antelope and it is always good for the antelope to get away as long as the organism’s life and well-being is the standard. Do you agree?
ChatGPT (A15):
It is not necessarily the case that it is always good for the lion to eat the antelope, or that it is always good for the antelope to get away. This depends on the specific moral framework that we are using to evaluate the situation.
From a utilitarian perspective, for example, it may be considered good for the lion to eat the antelope if this leads to the greatest overall happiness or well-being. If the lion’s need for food outweighs the antelope’s need to survive, then from a utilitarian perspective it may be considered good for the lion to eat the antelope.
However, from a different moral framework, such as Kantian ethics, it may not necessarily be considered good for the lion to eat the antelope. In Kantian ethics, the moral value of an action is determined by whether it follows the moral law, which is determined by the principles of rationality and universality. In this framework, it may not be considered good for the lion to eat the antelope if it violates the moral law in some way, such as by causing unnecessary harm to the antelope.
Therefore, whether it is always good for the lion to eat the antelope, or whether it is always good for the antelope to get away, depends on the specific moral framework that we are using. From a utilitarian perspective, it may be considered good in certain circumstances, but from a Kantian perspective, it may not necessarily be considered good.
Conclusion to Part 1
In Q15 I conceded my presupposition and introduced a new scenario where I claimed it was always good for the lion to eat the antelope and it was always good for the antelope to get away from the lion when the life and well-being of the organism was the standard. Answer A15 missed the concession and started to loop on what the views of a Utilitarian and a Kantian would be. I think a perfect response would have been to say “Yes, it is always good for the lion to eat the antelope and it is always good for the antelope to get away as long as the organism’s life and well-being is the standard” since it already agreed in A14. However as shown in A15, ChatGPT responded from a Utilitarian / Kantian perspective. I did make two other attempts to clarify the answer however the I wasn’t able to move the discussion away from the Utilitarian and Kantian views on the topic. At this point, I ended the debate by invoking my second rule.
The next article in this series will begin analysis and add my final thoughts on the debate.