Conjured impunity

Will AI rebuke or reinforce the ethics of righteous deception?

Impunity may be the perfect definition of humanity’s conception of freedom — from consequence, from pain, from retribution... Evading repercussions. Getting away with it, whatever it may be. Impunity is one of those concepts that entice those to irregular social positions. Sweeter gains, increased impunity.

The only reason the CEO looks uncomfortable during a mass layoff isn’t because she feels your pain. She’s afraid you’ll notice that she doesn’t. That’s impunity. 

I don’t believe any mortal soul can truly transcend the boundaries of cause and effect. This makes the declared moral high ground of impunity an attempt to induce a collective delirium.

And often times, it works! We catch ourselves saying silly things like how we wouldn’t want to be in their shoes. Heavy is the head that wears the crown, as they say.

But then we, the powerless masses, conjure our own impunity when executing on the decisions made above us. We cite just-following-orders to maintain our comfortable freedom from the direct consequence of our individual actions.

This reveals how impunity’s always been built around a false choice. An unspoken debt accrues. Impunity just blinds us from seeing the invisible string threaded from our actions to that outcome.

Impunity isn’t a decision between comfort or consequence - it’s comfort from consequence. An ever-eroding privileged position that heavily favors the status quo.

Sadly, we’re realizing that our unnaturally-productive economy cannot continue as scheduled. The earth itself is screaming at us. 

Our pitiful mitigation efforts have yielded minimal, if not inverse value.

I hate to break it to you, but recycling programs don’t make a positive impact on the climate. Quite frequently, the carbon cost of operation trends net negative.

Our continued existence actively accelerates the destabilization of our ecosystems, so it’s on us to decipher a countermeasure.

A proportionate response.

But we need to actually consider the effects of this action. We’ve got to shed our impunity, and come to terms with the effects of our actions thus far. We must temper our desire for freedom from consequence and carefully inspect all the details of the greater good proposed for any rushed global action.

Beware those who spare you the details.

Those who assume we wouldn’t be able to correctly weight a cost-benefit analysis. 

When something is sold to us under the auspices of an obfuscated greater good, it is intended to tap into our individual and collective desire to conjure impunity.

We assume there’s adults in the room, even while our current conditions have forced us all into adulthood.

Note: Unique AI-generated phrases are presented as bold and italic.

So this begs the question: can any pursuit of a noble goal justify its means, especially when those means involve manipulation, coercion and harm to others?

Recorded history footnotes an abundance of instances where a conflict’s victor ossifies its greater good into the fabric of the culture remaining. Often spinning any lingering significant ethical compromises as discounted outliers by citing ends justifying said means. 

Take America’s Manifest Destiny doctrine of the 19th century, for example. Expansionist policies built on the belief in the inherent virtue and inevitable success of these endeavors. We teach this doctrine in public schools, yet we gloss over how this ideology justified the displacement and suffering of untold millions of existing continental inhabitants, cultures and societies.

In contemporary times, the ethical dilemmas surrounding righteous deception have become increasingly complex, especially in the realm of international conflict and warfare. 

Striking from a distance is accepted as justified, necessary measures in the fight against terrorism. The resulting loss of innocent life is chalked up to a rounding error — facilitated by the average blast radius of a Hellfire missile.

Our world’s choice to repeatedly incite inhumane conflict resolution underscores the impossibly opaque moral ambiguities of modern warfare. 

Often sold as humanitarian missions to protect innocent lives, these actions result in collateral casualties and profound disruption to any functioning society. It’s no wonder that those remaining seethe with resentment.

Impossible levels of impunity would be required to even attempt to be the arbiter of balance between security and the value of human life.

But these actions happen frequently. Far too frequently. And in doing so, we yearn for this desire to be free of consequence. We desire it so cravenly that we borrow against our morality to create an intentionally misplaced confidence in our own ability to discern right from wrong. 

How on Earth could one confidently suggest a proportional response to an attack that slaughters innocent lives?

And how fast must this response be decided?

We might strike while the iron is hot, but must the wounds be fresh for the retribution to be satisfying?

Could GenAI be our next impunity apparatus? Will we allow it to control our actions under the guise of impunity? Or, will it radiate light to reveal the bad decisions hidden behind good intentions?

If AI means our destruction, our fate is sealed. But, if AI means our salvation, we’re going to have to come to terms with our path getting here. Who benefits, and how. Who is injured, and how. And simultaneously chart out a new path forward to benefit as many as possible.

Right now, we need clarity of mind, and a willingness to participate in building our thriving global society. Comfort is a vintage ideal that needs to rest on the shelf.

We have work to do.

This paradigm can’t be allowed to shift onto the throats of innocent collateral. We have the foresight, we can adjust our collective path before the game of capitalism bursts at its productive seams.

---

---

Transcript of ChatGPT conversation used in the creation of this piece:

You

Help me expand on this partial draft

.io Draft Muse

Please share the partial draft you'd like help with, and let me know how you'd like it expanded or any specific areas you're focusing on.

You

Imaginary Impunity

The Ethics of Righteous Deception

How do we gauge any benefit proposition sold to us under the auspices of an obfuscated good? Pursuits of a "greater good" by definition align deceptive means to achieve righteous ends. This ethical irony prompts us to reconsider how we scrutinize morality in the context of collective and individual actions.

Can any pursuit of an ostensibly noble goal justify its means, especially when those means involve manipulation, coercion and harm to others?

Recorded history shares a bountiful abundance of instances where a conflict’s victor ossifies the effort’s banner values while pursuing its greater good into the fabric of the remaining culture. Often spinning any lingering significant ethical compromises as discounted outliers by citing the ends justification of said means.

America’s Manifest Destiny doctrine of the 19th century led expansionist policies with the belief in the inherent virtue and inevitable success of these endeavors. We are taught about this doctrine in public schools, yet we gloss over how this ideology justified the displacement and suffering of untold millions of existing continental inhabitants, cultures and societies.

In contemporary times, the ethical dilemmas surrounding righteous deception have become increasingly complex, especially in the realm of international conflict and warfare.

It’s believed that striking from a distance is justified as necessary measures in the fight against terrorism. The resulting loss of innocent life is chalked up to a rounding error, facilitated by the average blast radius of a hellfire missile.

The world’s choice in exciting an inhumane nature of conflict resolution underscores the impossibly opaque moral ambiguities of modern warfare.

These actions, while often sold as humanitarian missions to protect innocent lives, almost certainly result in collateral damage of innocent casualties. This leaves these missions, along with those affected by the outcomes, plagued with a confused acceptance at best, and seething resentment at worst.

I don’t see how any mortal soul could attempt its hand at being the arbiter of the balance between security and the value of human life.

This underscores a critical insight into the human condition: the confidence in our ability to discern right from wrong is often misplaced. But we must expand that locus to include all human-led organizations. Someone wearing a jacket with a bunch of metal rectangles, shoulders with epaulets and tassels, and a stern look about the brow may have insights into the previous and current situation within a specific longitudinal coordinates.

How on Earth could one suggest a proportional response to a terroristic attack that also then exacted the intentional slaughter of innocent lives? How is this a tool in the toolbox? How is this a post-it that remained on the board?

And when it was decided, how was it decided? What value was placed on each life? Was there a conversion rate? Or is it a one-to-one ratio when nations decide the suffering exacted is the same as the suffering inflicted?

It’s that discerning fear of GenAI that we have. The transformer model, neural nets, machine learning - call it what you will. We’re afraid of Skynet, but why?

I believe we know exactly what we’re doing. We know recycling programs don’t work. We know we’ve built a system of living that actively accelerates the destabilization of our climate.

Yet we’re still afraid of a computer telling us a better way. I believe it’s because we don’t want to think that all the suffering of the past 12,000 years was needless. We don’t want to feel like the ends justify the means.

If AI means our destruction, our fate is sealed. If AI means our salvation, we’re going to have to come to terms with our path getting here. Who benefits, and how. Who is injured, and how.

This paradigm can’t be allowed to shift onto the throats of innocent collateral.

.io Draft Muse

Expanding on the draft "Imaginary Impunity: The Ethics of Righteous Deception," we can delve deeper into the philosophical underpinnings and societal implications of using deception for perceived noble ends. The exploration could emphasize the intricate dance between moral philosophy and practical necessity, weaving through historical examples, contemporary dilemmas, and future predicaments.

Deceptive Practices Across History and Cultures

Historically, the use of deception in achieving a greater good is not uncommon. Delve into examples beyond America's Manifest Destiny, such as the strategic deceits in wartime efforts by various civilizations that have been romanticized as cunning and valorous. These instances serve as a testament to the complex relationship societies have with truth and morality.

The Dichotomy of Modern Ethical Dilemmas

In modern contexts, the ethical considerations surrounding deception have become even more nuanced. With advancements in technology, the scope for deceit has broadened, encompassing not just physical acts but also digital manipulations. The discussion could explore how digital misinformation campaigns, under the guise of serving a greater good, challenge our ethical frameworks and necessitate a reevaluation of what constitutes morally permissible deception.

The Psychological and Societal Impact of Deception

Examine the psychological toll on societies and individuals when subjected to constant deception, even for beneficial reasons. The loss of trust in institutions, the erosion of social cohesion, and the mental health implications for individuals living in a state of perpetual skepticism are critical considerations. Drawing on psychological studies and sociological research can enrich this discussion, providing a well-rounded view of the consequences of righteous deception.

Balancing Act: Security Versus Ethical Integrity

The draft touches on the contentious balance between national security and the value of human life. Expanding on this, consider how societies can navigate these murky waters without compromising their ethical integrity. Is it possible to devise a framework that respects both security needs and moral obligations? This section could explore philosophical theories and ethical models that seek to provide a middle ground.

The Role of AI in Shaping Future Ethical Landscapes

The mention of GenAI invites speculation on how emerging technologies might further complicate the ethics of deception. AI's ability to manipulate data and perceptions could lead to unprecedented forms of deceit. However, it also offers tools for uncovering and combating misinformation. Discussing the dual-edged sword of AI technology in the context of righteous deception offers a glimpse into future challenges and opportunities.

Conclusion: Towards a More Ethical Framework

Conclude by advocating for a more refined ethical framework that acknowledges the complexities of modern and future dilemmas. This framework should prioritize transparency, accountability, and the protection of fundamental human rights while recognizing the nuanced realities of achieving communal and global goods.

By integrating these elements, the expansion not only deepens the exploration of the ethics of righteous deception but also connects historical practices with contemporary and future ethical challenges, offering readers a comprehensive understanding of this multifaceted issue.