Advertisement

Ethics, Computer Simulation, and the Future of Humanity

  • F. LeRon ShultsEmail author
  • Wesley J. Wildman
Chapter
Part of the New Approaches to the Scientific Study of Religion book series (NASR, volume 7)

Abstract

This chapter explores some of the key ethical issues impacting the field of computer modeling and simulation (M&S) in general and “human simulation” in particular. The first section discusses the “code of ethics” that has been adopted by many societies within the professional M&S community. The second section takes up several examples of computational models of human ethics and simulations for ethical training. The third section presents a meta-ethical framework for guiding ethical analysis within M&S; this framework is not a set of ethical guidelines, but a toolkit for guiding ethical decision-making in this interdisciplinary endeavor. In the fourth section, we ask: even if we can model the origin and destiny of humanity, does that mean we should? Finally, in the conclusion we issue an ethical challenge to M&S professionals.

Keywords

Meta-ethics Teleological ethics Deontological ethics Evolutionary ethics Bio-cultural evolution Religion Prediction 

References

  1. Ahrweiler, P. 2017. Agent-based simulation for science, technology, and innovation policy. Scientometrics 110 (1): 391–415.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2105-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bainbridge, William Sims. 2013. EGods: Faith versus fantasy in computer gaming. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett, J.L. 2004. Why would anyone believe in God? Lanham: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 2012. Born believers: The science of childhood religion. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  5. Berger, P.L., and T. Luckmann. 1967. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  6. Binmore, Ken. 1994. Game theory and the social contract, Vol. 1: Playing fair. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Birks, D., M. Townsley, and A. Stewart. 2012. Generative explanations of crime: Using simulation to test criminological theory. Criminology 50 (1): 221–254.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00258.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bissell, John, Camila Caiado, Sarah Curtis, Michael Goldstein, and Brian Straughan, eds. 2015. Tipping points: Modelling social problems and health. 1st ed. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Bostrom, Nick, and Eliezer Yudkowsky. 2014. The ethics of artificial intelligence. In The Cambridge handbook of artificial intelligence, 316–334. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Botterbusch, Hope R., and R.S. Talab. 2009. Ethical issues in second life. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning 53 (1): 9–13.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0227-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buchanan, Mark. 2008. The social atom: Why the rich get richer, cheaters get caught, and your neighbor usually looks like you. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA.Google Scholar
  12. Bynum, Terrell W. 2008. Milestones in the history of information and computer ethics. In The handbook of information and computer ethics, ed. Kenneth E. Himma and Herman T. Tavani, 25–48. Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cederman, Lars-Erik, Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, and Julian Wucherpfennig. 2017. Predicting the decline of ethnic civil war. Journal of Peace Research 54 (2): 262–274.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343316684191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conte, Rosaria, Giulia Andrighetto, and Marco Campennì. 2014. Minding norms: Mechanisms and dynamics of social order in agent societies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Corten, Rense. 2014. Computational approaches to studying the co-evolution of networks and behavior in social dilemmas. 1st ed. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dechesne, Francien, Gennaro Di Tosto, Virginia Dignum, and Frank Dignum. 2014. No smoking here: Values, norms and culture in multi-agent systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 21 (1): 79–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Desai, Anand. 2012. Simulation for policy inquiry. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dignum, V., F. Dignum, S. A. Osinga, and G. J. Hofstede. 2010. Normative, Cultural and Cognitive Aspects of Modelling Policies.” In Proceedings – Winter simulation conference, 720–732.  https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2010.5679115.
  19. Elsenbroich, Corinna. 2014. It takes two to tango: We-intentionality and the dynamics of social norms. In The complexity of social norms, ed. Maria Xenitidou and Bruce Edmonds, 81–103. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilbert, Nigel, Petra Ahrweiler, Pete Barbrook-Johnson, Kavin P. Narasimhan, and Helen Wilkinson. 2018. Computational modelling of public policy. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 21 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldspink, Chris. 2014. Social norms from the perspective of embodied cognition. In The complexity of social norms, ed. Maria Xenitidou and Bruce Edmonds, 55–80. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gore, Ross, Lemos Carlos, F. LeRon Shults, and Wesley J. Wildman. 2018. Forecasting changes in religiosity and existential security with an agent-based model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 21: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gustafsson, Johan E., and Martin Peterson. 2012. A computer simulation of the argument from disagreement. Synthese 184 (3): 387–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haidt, Jonathan. 2012. The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  25. Heath, Brian L., and Ross A. Jackson. 2013. Ontological implications of modeling and simulation in postmodernity. In Ontology, epistemology, and teleology for modeling and simulation, ed. Andreas Tolk, 890–103. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Hill, Ronald Paul, and Alison Watkins. 2007. A simulation of moral behavior within marketing exchange relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 35 (3): 417–429.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0025-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Himma, Kenneth E., and Herman T. Tavani. 2008. The handbook of information and computer ethics. Hoboken: Wiley. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/agder/detail.action?docID=353290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kettenis, Dirk L. 2000. Modeling and simulation impacts on society and the ethical dilemmas they create. Transactions of the Society for Computer Simulation International 17 (4): 181–186.Google Scholar
  29. Lemos, Carlos M. 2017. Agent-based modeling of social conflict: From mechanisms to complex behavior. 1st ed. 2018 edition. Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Mascaro, Steven, Kevin B. Korb, Ann E. Nicholson, and Owen Woodberry. 2010. Evolving ethics: The new science of good and evil. Charlottesville: Imprint Academic. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/inu.30000127033425.
  31. McLeod, John. 1986. But, Mr. President – Is it ethical? Proceedings of the 1986 Winter simulation conference, 1–3.Google Scholar
  32. Murrugarra, Ruth I., and William A. Wallace. 2017. Agent-based simulation for teaching ethics. In Proceedings of the 2017 Winter Simulation Conference, ed. W.K.V. Chan, A. D’Ambrogio, G. Zacharewicz, N. Mustafee, G. Wainer, and E. Page, 4220–4227.Google Scholar
  33. Neumann, Martin. 2014. The escalation of Ethnonationalist radicalization. Social Science Computer Review 32 (3): 312–333.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313511585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1989. On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo. ed. Walter Kaufmann, Reissue edition. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  35. Ören, Tuncer I. 2000. Responsibility, ethics, and simulation. Transactions 17 (4).Google Scholar
  36. Ören, Tuncer I., Maurice S. Elzas, Iva Smit, and Louis G. Birta. 2002. Code of professional ethics for simulationists. In Summer computer simulation conference, 434–435. Society for Computer Simulation International; 1998.Google Scholar
  37. Pentland, Alex. 2014. Social physics: How good ideas spread -the lessons from a new science. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  38. Puga-Gonzalez, I., and C. Sueur. 2017. Friendships and social networks in an individual-based model of primate social behaviour. JASSS 20 (3).  https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.3450.
  39. Puga-Gonzalez, Ivan, Marina Butovskaya, Bernard Thierry, Charlotte Korinna Hemelrijk, and Stephen C. Pratt. 2014. Empathy versus parsimony in understanding post-conflict affiliation in monkeys: Model and empirical data. PLoS One 9 (3): e91262.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rawls, John. 2005. A theory of justice: Original edition, Reissue edition. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rehg, W. 2015. Discourse ethics for computer ethics: A heuristic for engaged dialogical reflection. Ethics and Information Technology 17 (1): 27–39.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-014-9359-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schelling, Thomas C. 1971. Dynamic models of segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1 (2): 143–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schumann, Paul L., Timothy W. Scott, and Philip H. Anderson. 2006. Designing and introducing ethical dilemmas into computer-based business simulations. Journal of Management Education 30 (1): 195–219.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562905280844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scott, N., A. Hart, J. Wilson, M. Livingston, D. Moore, and P. Dietze. 2016. The effects of extended public transport operating hours and venue lockout policies on drinking-related harms in Melbourne, Australia: Results from SimDrink, an agent-based simulation model. International Journal of Drug Policy 32: 44–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.02.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shults, F. LeRon. 2018. Can we predict and prevent religious radicalization? pp. 45–71 In Violent extremism in the 21st century: International perspectives, ed Gwenyth Øverland. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
  46. Shults, F. LeRon, Ross Gore, Wesley J. Wildman, Justin E. Lane, Chris Lynch, and Monica Toft. 2018a. A generative model of the mutual escalation of anxiety between religious groups. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 21(4): 1–24.Google Scholar
  47. Shults, F. LeRon, Justin E. Lane, Saikou Diallo, Christopher Lynch, Wesley J. Wildman, and Ross Gore. 2018b. Modeling terror management theory: Computer simulations of the impact of mortality salience on religiosity. Religion, Brain & Behavior 8 (1): 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tolk, Andreas. 2013. Truth, trust, and Turing – Implications for modeling and simulation. In Ontology, epistemology, and teleology for modeling and simulation, ed. Andreas Tolk, 1–26. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. ———. 2017. Code of ethics. In The profession of modeling and simulation: Discipline, ethics, education, vocation, societies, Adn economics, ed. Andreas Tolk and Tuncer Oren, 35–52. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weisberg, Michael. 2012. Simulation and similarity: Using models to understand the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Wildman, Wesley J., and Richard Sosis. 2011. Stability of groups with costly beliefs and practices. JASSS 14 (3).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Global Development and Social PlanningUniversity of AgderKristiansandNorway
  2. 2.Boston University and Center for Mind and CultureBostonUSA
  3. 3.Center for Modeling Social SystemsKristiansandNorway
  4. 4.Center for Mind and CultureBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations