Moral Metrics: An AI’s Attempt to Quantify Philosophical Systems

It’s no secret that I am a big fan of AI. I use it a lot as a tool to expand on ideas that I have, and to convert stuff that I’ve created into the appropriate format for various things.

As a tool, I find it absolutely incredible, especially as someone with a physical disability that heavily limits my ability to type and write at length. It has been, for want of a better phrase, a God Send for me being able to produce content.

However, whilst that is the main thing that I use AI for, I also find it absolutely fascinating to throw other things at it, and see what it can come up with. Whether that’s telling it to write a sonnet comparing William Shakespeare to Edgar Allen Poe (it did a pretty good job, but it messed up the rhyming structure a little bit), summarising a concept or topic that I don’t fully grasp in a way that is easy to understand ( the prompt ‘Please explain *insert topic* to me in a way that an absolute beginner would grasp.’ has been really great) it is always remarkable to see what it creates, and to see how what it can create changes over time, as the models develop further.

With that in mind, I decided to throw something big at it.
I wanted to see what would happen if I got it to judge and score the different Moral Philosophies.

I did not want to correct it at any point. It said some things that I definitely don’t agree with, but I didn’t want my pre-held opinions to sway what it came up with, in any way.

Process:

Before I give you what I did and what it said, a point for clarity. I have edited what it said, but only to present it as a coherent block, I have not changed anything that it generated.

First I asked it to give me a list of the main Moral Philosophies, to which it provided 12.

Deontological Ethics (Kantianism): Focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, rather than the outcomes. Often associated with Immanuel Kant’s “categorical imperative.”
Virtue Ethics: Emphasizes virtues or moral character, rather than following a set of rules. Associated with ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle.
Rights-based Ethics: Focuses on respecting and protecting individual rights, like the right to life, freedom, and property.
Contractarianism/Contractualism: Views morality as based on social or mutual agreements, arguing that rational individuals will agree to certain moral principles.
Care Ethics: Emphasizes the importance of care as a central moral value, often discussed in the context of interpersonal relationships. Inspired by the work of Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings.
Value Pluralism: Proposes that there are several values which might be equally correct and fundamental, yet in conflict with each other. Isaiah Berlin is a notable proponent.
Relativism: Argues that values and moral principles are relative to the culture or individual. This means there are no absolute moral truths.
Divine Command Theory: Holds that morality is determined by the commands of a divine entity. What is morally right is what God commands, and what is wrong is what God forbids.
Natural Law Theory: Asserts that there are objective moral principles that can be discovered through reason and are based on the nature of reality and human nature.
Egoism: Proposes that individuals should act in their own self-interest.
Existentialist Ethics: Based on the existentialist view that individuals create their own values in an indifferent or even absurd universe. Thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Friedrich Nietzsche can be linked to this school.
Consequentialism: This approach holds that the consequences of one’s actions are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that action.

Then I asked it to come up with a set of criteria that a Moral Philosophy could be judged on. I gave it 2 examples to work from, and it presented a list of 15 criteria.

Guidance on Kindness: How clearly and effectively does the philosophy instruct individuals to treat others with kindness, compassion, and respect?
Minimization of Harm: To what extent does the philosophy emphasize minimizing harm to others, whether it be physical, emotional, or psychological?
Clarity and Practicability: How comprehensible and applicable are the tenets of the philosophy in everyday life?
Universalizability: Can the philosophy’s principles be applied universally across different cultures, contexts, and situations?
Rights Protection: How does the philosophy prioritize and protect individual and collective rights?
Responsiveness to Moral Dilemmas: How effectively does the philosophy offer guidance on complex moral issues or dilemmas where values may conflict?
Promotion of Personal Growth: Does the philosophy encourage individuals to develop virtues or moral characteristics that contribute to personal and societal well-being?
Interpersonal Relationships: How does the philosophy guide interactions in personal relationships, friendships, family, etc.?
Attitude towards Justice: How does the philosophy view justice, fairness, and equity in society?
Environmental Ethics: Does the philosophy offer any guidance on how to treat non-human entities, nature, and the environment?
Adaptability to Change: How well does the philosophy adapt to changing societal values, scientific discoveries, and technological advancements?
Coherence and Internal Consistency: Are the principles of the philosophy logically consistent, or are there internal contradictions?
Promotion of Community/Social Well-being: How well does the philosophy promote values that lead to a harmonious and thriving community or society?
Approach to Pleasure and Suffering: How does the philosophy view pleasure, happiness, suffering, and their roles in determining moral actions?
Accountability and Responsibility: How does the philosophy address personal accountability and responsibility for one’s actions?

I then asked it to score each system, and to give a brief synopsis of that score.
Here is what the current generation of Chat GPT came up with:

1. Deontological Ethics (Kantianism):

Guidance on Kindness: 4. Treat others as ends, not means.
Minimization of Harm: 4. Duty to avoid harming others.
Clarity and Practicability: 3. Categorical imperatives can be abstract.
Universalizability: 5. A cornerstone is that rules should be universalizable.
Rights Protection: 5. Respects individual autonomy and rights.
Responsiveness to Moral Dilemmas: 3. Duty-based approach can be rigid.
Promotion of Personal Growth: 3. Moral duty is emphasized more than growth.
Interpersonal Relationships: 4. Focuses on mutual respect.
Attitude towards Justice: 5. Strong emphasis on justice and fairness.
Environmental Ethics: 2. Less focus on nature, more on human duties.
Adaptability to Change: 3. Firm on moral duties, which can be less adaptable.
Coherence and Internal Consistency: 4. Principles are consistent, though application can be debated.
Promotion of Community/Social Well-being: 4. Universal laws inherently promote societal harmony.
Approach to Pleasure and Suffering: 3. More focused on duty than on outcomes.
Accountability and Responsibility: 5. Emphasizes duty and responsibility.
- Score Total: 52/75
- Synopsis: Focuses on duty and universal principles. Strong on rights protection and internal consistency. Less adaptive to change and might have a strict view of certain moral dilemmas.

2. Virtue Ethics (primarily associated with Aristotle):

Guidance on Kindness: 5. Emphasizes virtues like kindness and compassion.
Minimization of Harm: 4. Virtuous individuals are less likely to harm others.
Clarity and Practicability: 4. Focuses on cultivating character rather than adhering to rules.
Universalizability: 3. Virtues can vary across cultures.
Rights Protection: 3. Not its primary focus, but virtuous individuals tend to respect others.
Responsiveness to Moral Dilemmas: 4. Looks to virtuous character as guidance.
Promotion of Personal Growth: 5. Central to this system.
Interpersonal Relationships: 5. Values relationships and community.
Attitude towards Justice: 4. Justice is seen as a virtue.
Environmental Ethics: 3. More focused on human virtues than environmental concerns.
Adaptability to Change: 4. Virtues can be reinterpreted over time.
Coherence and Internal Consistency: 4. Well-integrated around the idea of virtue.
Promotion of Community/Social Well-being: 5. Emphasizes harmony and flourishing.
Approach to Pleasure and Suffering: 4. Considers a virtuous life as fulfilling.
Accountability and Responsibility: 4. Ties moral worth to one’s character.
- Score Total: 57/75
- Synopsis: Emphasizes character and personal growth. Strong in interpersonal relationships and adaptability. Some ambiguity in moral dilemmas and may lack clarity on universalizability.

3. Rights-based Ethics:

Guidance on Kindness: 4. Respects individual rights, which can correlate with kindness.
Minimization of Harm: 5. Prioritizes not violating individual rights.
Clarity and Practicability: 4. Clear guidelines, though determining rights can be challenging.
Universalizability: 4. Assumes certain fundamental rights are universal.
Rights Protection: 5. Central focus.
Responsiveness to Moral Dilemmas: 3. Can be rigid when rights conflict.
Promotion of Personal Growth: 2. Not its primary focus.
Interpersonal Relationships: 3. Based on respect but not necessarily relational depth.
Attitude towards Justice: 5. Intrinsically tied to justice.
Environmental Ethics: 2. Focus is on human rights.
Adaptability to Change: 3. Rights can evolve, but the system can be rigid.
Coherence and Internal Consistency: 4. Centered on the concept of rights.
Promotion of Community/Social Well-being: 3. By ensuring individual rights.
Approach to Pleasure and Suffering: 3. Indirect concern via rights.
Accountability and Responsibility: 4. Holds individuals accountable for rights violations.
- Score Total: 56/75
- Synopsis: Prioritizes protection of individual rights. Strong on accountability and clarity. May struggle with adaptability to change and minimizing harm in some scenarios.

4. Contractarianism/Contractualism:

Guidance on Kindness: 3. More about mutual benefit than kindness.
Minimization of Harm: 4. Parties agree to minimize harm to ensure mutual benefit.
Clarity and Practicability: 3. Depends on the nature of agreements.
Universalizability: 3. Contracts may not be universally applicable.
Rights Protection: 3. Depends on the contract’s terms.
Responsiveness to Moral Dilemmas: 3. Dilemmas might arise when contracts conflict.
Promotion of Personal Growth: 2. Not a central concern.
Interpersonal Relationships: 3. Based on mutual agreements.
Attitude towards Justice: 3. Justice is contractually determined.
Environmental Ethics: 3. If it’s part of the contract.
Adaptability to Change: 4. Contracts can be renegotiated.
Coherence and Internal Consistency: 4. Rooted in the idea of mutual agreement.
Promotion of Community/Social Well-being: 3. Through social contracts.
Approach to Pleasure and Suffering: 3. Determined by the contract.
Accountability and Responsibility: 4. Based on contract adherence.
- Score Total: 51/75
- Synopsis: Based on mutual agreements. Prioritizes societal well-being and clarity in its principles. May sometimes lack in personal growth and environmental ethics.

5. Care Ethics:

Guidance on Kindness: 5. Central focus on care and relational understanding.
Minimization of Harm: 5. Prioritizes care and avoiding harm in relationships.
Clarity and Practicability: 4. Grounded in everyday relational practices.
Universalizability: 3. While care is universal, its application may differ across cultures.
Rights Protection: 4. Cares for individuals’ well-being, indirectly respecting rights.
Responsiveness to Moral Dilemmas: 4. Considers relationships and context in dilemmas.
Promotion of Personal Growth: 4. Growth through nurturing relationships.
Interpersonal Relationships: 5. Central to the philosophy.
Attitude towards Justice: 4. Advocates for caring justice.
Environmental Ethics: 4. Emphasizes care for all beings and the environment.
Adaptability to Change: 4. Adaptable due to its context-based nature.
Coherence and Internal Consistency: 4. Revolves around the consistent theme of care.
Promotion of Community/Social Well-being: 5. Through a network of caring relationships.
Approach to Pleasure and Suffering: 4. Focuses on alleviating suffering through care.
Accountability and Responsibility: 4. Responsibility in the context of relationships.
- Score Total: 58/75
- Synopsis: Emphasizes relationships and care. Strong in interpersonal relationships and minimizing harm. Somewhat less universal due to cultural interpretations of care.

6. Value Pluralism:

Guidance on Kindness: 3. Recognizes multiple values, not just kindness.
Minimization of Harm: 4. Harmonizing conflicting values may lead to minimizing harm.
Clarity and Practicability: 3. Many values can make decision-making complex.
Universalizability: 3. Acknowledges values can differ across cultures.
Rights Protection: 3. One of many values considered.
Responsiveness to Moral Dilemmas: 4. Designed to address conflicts in values.
Promotion of Personal Growth: 3. Encourages understanding diverse values.
Interpersonal Relationships: 3. Values relationships among other values.
Attitude towards Justice: 4. Values justice, but also recognizes other conflicting values.
Environmental Ethics: 3. One value among many.
Adaptability to Change: 4. Can incorporate new values over time.
Coherence and Internal Consistency: 3. Values can sometimes conflict.
Promotion of Community/Social Well-being: 4. Advocates for understanding diverse values.
Approach to Pleasure and Suffering: 3. One aspect among many values.
Accountability and Responsibility: 3. Depends on which values are prioritized.
- Score Total: 49/75
- Synopsis: Recognizes multiple, sometimes conflicting values. Adaptable to change and responsive to dilemmas. Can lack clarity due to the multitude of values.

7. Relativism:

Guidance on Kindness: 2. Kindness is relative.
Minimization of Harm: 2. Concepts of harm can be relative.
Clarity and Practicability: 3. Clear within a cultural context, but can vary across cultures.
Universalizability: 1. Rejects universal moral standards.
Rights Protection: 2. Rights are seen as culturally relative.
Responsiveness to Moral Dilemmas: 3. Resolves dilemmas within cultural norms.
Promotion of Personal Growth: 2. Growth is also relative.
Interpersonal Relationships: 3. Defined by cultural norms.
Attitude towards Justice: 2. Justice is culturally relative.
Environmental Ethics: 2. Depends on cultural values.
Adaptability to Change: 5. Naturally adapts to cultural changes.
Coherence and Internal Consistency: 2. Lacks a universal standard.
Promotion of Community/Social Well-being: 3. As defined by cultural norms.
Approach to Pleasure and Suffering: 2. Also relative.
Accountability and Responsibility: 2. Held accountable to cultural norms.
- Score Total: 38/75
- Synopsis: Morality is culturally or individually determined. Highly adaptable to change. Lacks universality and may not prioritize harm minimization or rights protection.

8. Egoism:

Guidance on Kindness: 2. Prioritizes self-interest over kindness.
Minimization of Harm: 2. Concerned with personal harm, not necessarily harm to others.
Clarity and Practicability: 4. Clear emphasis on self-interest.
Universalizability: 3. Everyone acting in self-interest might lead to conflicts.
Rights Protection: 2. Concerned with one’s own rights over others’.
Responsiveness to Moral Dilemmas: 3. Uses self-interest as the primary metric.
Promotion of Personal Growth: 4. Personal growth that benefits the self is prioritized.
Interpersonal Relationships: 2. Valued insofar as they serve self-interest.
Attitude towards Justice: 2. Justice is seen through the lens of self-benefit.
Environmental Ethics: 2. Concerned if it affects personal well-being.
Adaptability to Change: 4. Adapts based on what is best for oneself.
Coherence and Internal Consistency: 4. Consistently promotes self-interest.
Promotion of Community/Social Well-being: 1. Not a primary concern unless it serves self-interest.
Approach to Pleasure and Suffering: 4. Direct concern for personal pleasure and avoidance of suffering.
Accountability and Responsibility: 3. Holds oneself accountable to personal goals.
- Score Total: 39/75
- Synopsis: Prioritizes self-interest. Strong in personal growth and adaptability. Weak in societal well-being and often in conflict with rights of others.

9. Divine Command Theory:

Guidance on Kindness: 4. Based on religious scriptures, which often promote kindness.
Minimization of Harm: 4. Many religious teachings emphasize non-harming.
Clarity and Practicability: 4. Clear commands, though interpretations can vary.
Universalizability: 3. While commands are universal within a religion, different religions have varied commands.
Rights Protection: 4. Many religions uphold the sanctity of human life and rights.
Responsiveness to Moral Dilemmas: 3. Seeks guidance from religious teachings.
Promotion of Personal Growth: 4. Spiritual growth is often emphasized.
Interpersonal Relationships: 4. Many religions value community and relationships.
Attitude towards Justice: 4. Divine justice is a common theme.
Environmental Ethics: 3. Some religious teachings emphasize stewardship of the Earth.
Adaptability to Change: 2. Divine commands are often seen as unchanging.
Coherence and Internal Consistency: 4. Rooted in religious scripture.
Promotion of Community/Social Well-being: 4. Many religions emphasize community.
Approach to Pleasure and Suffering: 3. Views vary, but many religious views offer meaning in suffering.
Accountability and Responsibility: 5. Moral accountability to a divine power.
- Score Total: 53/75
- Synopsis: Grounded in religious beliefs. Strong emphasis on accountability and often on kindness. Less adaptable due to perceived unchanging divine commands.

10. Natural Law Theory:

Guidance on Kindness: 4. Sees kindness as aligning with human nature.
Minimization of Harm: 4. Harm is often against the perceived natural order.
Clarity and Practicability: 3. Interpretations of “natural law” can vary.
Universalizability: 4. Assumes there’s a universal human nature.
Rights Protection: 4. Rooted in the idea of inherent human dignity.
Responsiveness to Moral Dilemmas: 3. Looks to nature as a guide, which can be ambiguous.
Promotion of Personal Growth: 4. Growth in accordance with human nature.
Interpersonal Relationships: 4. Values relationships as part of human nature.
Attitude towards Justice: 4. Justice aligns with the natural order.
Environmental Ethics: 4. Values nature and its order.
Adaptability to Change: 3. Natural law views may evolve but can be slow to change.
Coherence and Internal Consistency: 3. Based on interpretations of nature.
Promotion of Community/Social Well-being: 4. Sees community as natural to humans.
Approach to Pleasure and Suffering: 3. Aligns with views on natural good.
Accountability and Responsibility: 4. Accountability to natural order.
- Score Total: 52/75
- Synopsis: Based on perceived inherent human nature. Strong in rights protection and community well-being. May sometimes lack clarity due to varying interpretations of nature.

11. Consequentialism (Utilitarianism being its most popular form):

Guidance on Kindness: 4. Kindness often leads to positive outcomes and thus is promoted.
Minimization of Harm: 5. Central tenet is to maximize good and minimize harm.
Clarity and Practicability: 3. The principle is clear, but calculating outcomes can be complex.
Universalizability: 4. Seeks the greatest good for the greatest number.
Rights Protection: 3. Individual rights can sometimes be sacrificed for greater good.
Responsiveness to Moral Dilemmas: 5. Directly addresses outcomes of decisions.
Promotion of Personal Growth: 3. Growth is valued if it leads to better consequences.
Interpersonal Relationships: 3. Valued in terms of their outcomes.
Attitude towards Justice: 4. Justice is often seen in terms of positive societal outcomes.
Environmental Ethics: 4. If environmental well-being leads to positive consequences.
Adaptability to Change: 4. Adjusts to new information about outcomes.
Coherence and Internal Consistency: 4. Centered around outcome-based evaluations.
Promotion of Community/Social Well-being: 5. Core principle of maximizing societal good.
Approach to Pleasure and Suffering: 5. Seeks to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering.
Accountability and Responsibility: 5. Focus on consequences makes accountability central.
- Score Total: 58/75
- Synopsis: Focuses on outcomes and maximizing the good. Highly responsive to moral dilemmas and promotes societal well-being. Can sometimes conflict with individual rights.

12. Nihilism:

Guidance on Kindness: 1. Rejects objective values, including kindness.
Minimization of Harm: 1. No inherent value in minimizing harm.
Clarity and Practicability: 3. Clear in its rejection of moral values, but offers little practical guidance.
Universalizability: 2. While it denies universal values, the stance itself is universally applicable.
Rights Protection: 1. No objective basis for rights.
Responsiveness to Moral Dilemmas: 2. Dilemmas are moot as no objective moral truths exist.
Promotion of Personal Growth: 1. No objective value in personal growth.
Interpersonal Relationships: 1. Relationships have no inherent moral value.
Attitude towards Justice: 1. No objective basis for justice.
Environmental Ethics: 1. Nature has no intrinsic moral worth.
Adaptability to Change: 5. Naturally adaptable since it doesn’t hold to any fixed values.
Coherence and Internal Consistency: 4. Consistently rejects objective values.
Promotion of Community/Social Well-being: 1. No inherent value in community well-being.
Approach to Pleasure and Suffering: 1. Neither pleasure nor suffering has objective moral significance.
Accountability and Responsibility: 1. No objective basis for accountability.
- Score Total: 28/75
- Synopsis: Rejects objective moral values. Highly adaptable but lacks guidance in most ethical concerns, from interpersonal relationships to environmental ethics.

I then asked it to use these scores, and write which 3 Moral Philosophies are the best, and why.

Based on the scores provided earlier, the top three moral philosophies are:

Consequentialism (Utilitarianism): 58/75
Care Ethics: 58/75
Virtue Ethics: 57/75

Why?

Consequentialism (Utilitarianism)
- Synopsis: Centralizes on maximizing positive outcomes for the greatest number. Highly oriented toward societal well-being and responsive to moral dilemmas. Its strength lies in its direct engagement with the outcomes of actions, making it highly accountable and oriented towards minimizing harm. The potential downside is its occasional conflict with individual rights, given its emphasis on the collective good.
Care Ethics
- Synopsis: Emphasizes relationships, interdependence, and care. It is strong in interpersonal relationships, guidance on kindness, and minimizing harm. This approach recognizes the interconnectedness of individuals and values emotional engagement, making it particularly adept at handling interpersonal moral issues. However, its cultural interpretations might make it less universal in some contexts.
Virtue Ethics
- Synopsis: Focuses on the cultivation of good character and virtuous living. It strongly emphasizes personal growth, interpersonal relationships, and the inherent value of virtues themselves, rather than just the outcomes or rules. By prioritizing the development of good character, it provides guidance on how one should be, rather than just what one should do. However, its subjective nature and potential for cultural variance might create ambiguities in specific moral situations.

These three philosophies scored the highest because they offered comprehensive guidance across a range of criteria, from interpersonal relationships to societal well-being, adaptability, and practical clarity. While no single philosophy is perfect or universally applicable, these three demonstrated strengths in multiple areas of ethical consideration.

Conclusion:

So, should we take what the AI has to say about these different systems seriously? Well, that is ultimately up to you.
I find what it said to be at least internally logical and consistent, even if I don’t agree with some of the things that it said. For example, giving DCT a high score on the first criteria because scriptures ‘often promote kindness’ is definitely not how I would have scored that.
So I’m not sure I could say that I agree with its conclusions and scores.

But what I can say is that it at least gives me an idea of what to look at, if and when I decide to delve deeper into any of them.