Beyond Earth (ATWG) - Chapter 17 - A Code of Ethics for Humans in Space by K.T. Connor, L. Downing and B. Krone
From The Space Library
Chapter 17
A Code of Ethics for Humans in Space
By K.T. Connor, Lawrence Downing, & Bob Krone
Science fiction writers who use space travel as their literary vehicle frequently depict those in the far-off regions of the cosmos as villains, misfits, and weirdoes. The age-old conflict between right and wrong, the good guys and the bad guys, is the basis of Star Wars, Star Trek, Flash Gordon and countless other space fantasies. However, the authors of this chapter do not believe evil is an inevitable product of human habitation. We hold to the belief, perhaps an over optimistic one, that it's possible for human beings to occupy space and live together in a spirit of cooperation, respect, and peace.
It is not our intent to establish a Utopian society, and we understand that the humans who journey into space share the same traits as those they leave behind. They will be subject to the same inclinations, foibles, and weaknesses as everyone else. But given the vulnerabilities and challenges that those living in space will be subjected to, it becomes even more essential that an accepted Code of Ethics provide a strong foundation for a society in which an exceptional degree of mutual dependence will be the norm rather than the exception.
Such a Code of Ethics, if it is to be effective, must be accepted by people of all faiths and cultures, by who are Jewish, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, and any number of other religious and philosophical affiliations. And despite their differences, the one constant that connects each to the other is their humanity, so the Code of Ethics must therefore build on innate human values and respond to the human way of thinking. Describing such a Code is the intent of this chapter.
The Challenge
The exploration and habitation of space will succeed only with the collaboration of many nations, cultures, and minds. Gone are the days when one country or one church can set out alone to conquer distant frontiers. The global village has not only arrived, it has engendered the vision of universe-village, the habitation and enrichment of which will require that wealth of diversity of which our planet is bountiful. It requires a mosaic of the cultural wealth of many different minds. As these minds will be making decisions for and with one another, achieving decision-making integration will require nothing less than an ethic that is boundary-less, yet firm and engaging.
This challenge to launch an intensely collaborative venture beyond our planet is a humbling one. It calls upon us to reflect on our common humanity and to summon the best of the goodness that is within us to infuse our actions and decisions. We can squander this opportunity if we allow ourselves to be limited by the biases of a single culture, class, or country, or if we settle for less than that goodness.
Only if we fashion our efforts within an ethical system that is universally valid can we succeed in this, but accomplishing this is not as self-evident as it sounds. We will be tempted to search for "the perfect values," or "the perfect philosophical system," or "the perfect summary of what the majority of humans believe is important," but none of these will suffice. At worst they will lead us to never-ending conflict over which of the many options is "the perfect" option; at best they will provide us with an incomplete picture, even a shifting one.
What is required is an ethical system that is universally valid, one that reflects a multitude of cultural, national, religious, philosophical, and even corporate principles through a single, universal system, not because it's a statistical model built inductively out of collected values data, but because it's derived from the logic of the human psyche.
In order for it to survive into perpetuity rather than be influenced by changing mores and world views, this ethical system must have internal fitness and rigor. Otherwise it will fail to withstand the inevitable pressure for modification by external cultural, religious, and political pressures. It requires, in fact, the same rigor that is characteristic of the aeronautical and technological thinking that is fashioning the means for space exploration.
However, ethics is often considered to be a "soft" discipline, one more philosophical or religion-based than scientific. If our ethical system is to share the same rigor as other scientific contributions to the space strategy, it is important that this view of ethics as "soft" change. It can do so, we anticipate, through careful conception and design.
Does such a scientifically ethical system exist? As reasonable as such requirements sound, can they be realistically met? We say they can. Using Value Science as a base, we describe here an ethical system which is:
Universal-defining unifying ethical principles that cut across national, religious, personal, and class boundaries;
Objective-rooted in a mathematical and logical system, and independent of any one particular religious, cultural, or philosophical system of ethics
Measurable-expressed in terminology that is reduced to logical expression;
Unifying-expressed in terms whose truth is intuitively obvious and independent of any one ethical system or expression;
Applicable-producing rules for making ethical decisions;
Binding-eliciting general commitment and engagement.
Rather than starting with maxims, this approach reaches maxims by applying universally derived principles having rigorous internal logic and precision.
The Major Source
Robert S. Hartman was a judge in Hitler's Germany, and in dismay he watched his former classmates rise to power and effect, as he put it, "the organization of evil." Hartman decided then to devote himself to identifying how to organize good. He lamented the fact that the technological miracles that the human mind had brought about were not matched in the moral and ethical realm, and his devotion gave birth to a dimension of value science that opens up for us an understanding of ethics which is rich and transcending, yet eminently practical. He was able to fill the gap he saw: the need for a rigorously scientific way to organize ethical behavior.
The basis for it is simple.
Human beings understand the value of things and ideas according to a hierarchy: some things are more valuable than others. As there is a deeply embedded logic to what this hierarchy is, this logic is amenable even to mathematical formulation.
Humans tend to agree that people are more important than things, and things are more important than rules or concepts. Most people would save a person from a burning building before they would save a burning chair. There is an internal logic, mathematically describable, that accounts for these judgments. This is not to say that we are all unanimous or uniform in our expression of this logic all of the time, for variation is part of humanness. What we cannot deny, however, is a logic of valuing that exists, and that in our clearest and best moments it is recognized universally and implicitly.
The hierarchy exists not because a majority of the human race were polled and agreed to the values, but because of a simple axiom that is self-evident. We do recognize that there are people who do not hold these beliefs and who do not place the high value on people, but society, in general, considers those who value things above people to be pathological.
The fact that as individuals we vary on their acceptance of these principles at one time or another does not change the logic. That thing which most fulfills its idealized concept is more valuable than that which fulfills it to a lesser degree; that which possesses most richly the qualities proper to it is that which is the most worthy and the most valued.
Hartman reasoned that there were three kinds of value: Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and Systemic.
Intrinsic values are infinite and can not be exhausted. Nor can they be subtracted from. John is always John, yet you will never exhaust the dimensions of John. Moreover you can never make John less John. Because intrinsic realities are unique, only one of each exists, and that one has all the characteristics of its definition.
Extrinsic values are also infinite but can be added to and subtracted from. A chair by definition has a limited number of characteristics but there are an infinite number of chairs that could fit that definition: tall chairs, short chairs, wood chairs, metal chairs, and so on. Thus, chairs can be more or less good in being chairs. Some could only have soft cushions, others more durable seats, or have rockers. Such a chair might be deemed a better chair than another.
Systemic values are finite. Only one thing passes for a circle, and if those conditions defining a circle are not met, it is not a circle. It is perhaps a good arc, but not a circle. Systemic values either are or are not. It's not possible to be more or less a circle in the systemic sense. Of course a child's drawing of a circle can be a bad circle. But that is an extrinsic reality, not a conceptual or systemic reality. Conceptually, we know that a drawn circle that looks like a watermelon is not a true circle.
Applied to Ethics
All three value dimensions are important to an ethical environment.
Systemic thinking provides necessary definition and consistency, and clarifies moral code. It determines whether or not something is right or perfect.
Extrinsic thinking allows us to compare one value with another and choose the better option. It determines whether or not something fits a need.
Intrinsic thinking establishes the value of the object (often a person) in itself, and creates in us an ownership and identification with the choice. It determines whether or not something is unique.
Moral choice, then, depends on all three kinds of value. In the ideal ethical situation, moral code determines the boundaries, differing actions are weighed and choices made, and all the while each person, true to him or herself, owns their potential for good and bad, and commits to their principles. And those principles add value and protect the relative value of the logical hierarchy: first people, then things, then concepts.
Based on this foundation, we summarize as follows:
Our hypothesis: An acceptable Code of Ethics can be designed for those who migrate to space.
We believe: A code of ethics is needed for humans in space.
Our conclusion: Without an accepted code of ethics, humanity will export its history of competitive survival-of-the-strongest into space, and some will continue to exploit and denigrate other human beings.
Ethics for Space
In space and on the way to space we will be faced with decisions requiring us to sort through difficult options. Upon what can these decisions rest in order to make these decisions ethically, that is, with integrity and responsibility? When controversies arise, how does one discriminate among the choices to make the most ethical decision? In space this is a particularly critical question, because of the probability of meeting situations for which there is no earthly precedent.
We propose, as a response to this question, a system of decision-making that takes advantage of the logical thoroughness of the axiological process (from "axios" meaning worth, worthy, valuable; thus, a science pertaining to or studying values) and yields guidelines for ethical decision-making. Given the complexity of "reality," we need a decision-making framework that reflects such complexity while enabling us to see the issues at hand with more clarity.
Our model reflects intrinsic dimensions, extrinsic dimensions, and systemic dimensions, as noted in the vertical columns. The horizontal rows are labeled "Uniqueness," "Function," and "Structure." Uniqueness, because for any concept it is possible to identify the results when the uniqueness of that concept is valued intrinsically, extrinsically, and systemically. The same applies to function, which includes action, parts and steps; and structure, which includes principles, order, and meaning. In looking at the concept of "ethics for space" the following systems will result from a matrix view of these factors, charted accordingly:
Figure 17.1
The components of these systems will be guidelines for actions, and will follow the logical hierarchy inherent in Formal Axiology, or Value Science. According to this reasoning, intrinsic is more valuable than extrinsic, which is more valuable than systemic. A clear set of prioritized guidelines will result, looking like this:
1. Life system
Guidelines for identifying the value of life, for respecting and valuing life.
2. Individual Ethical System Guidelines for building moral and ethical decisions.
3. Growth System Guidelines for managing innovation, change, and risk
4. Social Ethical System Guidelines for maintaining social cohesion
5. Operational System Guidelines for prioritizing day-to-day tasks
6. Logistical System Guidelines for implementing strategies and principles
7. Personal Principle System Guidelines for integrating mission requirements and personal commitments
8. Mission System Guidelines for prioritizing actions according to the vision and purpose of the mission
9. Codes and Standards System Guidelines for defining and storing principles, rules, and codes.
Each of these systems is then divided into 9 guidelines, three intrinsic, three extrinsic, and three systemic. These guidelines in turn generate decision applications. Because of the structured basis of the systems and guidelines, it would be possible to create a computer generated reservoir of the logical/ethical metasystem that could produce guidelines for decision-making, thereby providing a neutral "third-party" counsel. In this way, the desired universality of the ethical system can be retained and decisions removed from the arena of particular cultural and ethnic perspectives.
To illustrate the process on ever more specific guidelines being produced, consider the first system, the Life System.
Figure 17.2 The Life System
Corollaries flowing from these would be as follows:
Human Life
PRINCIPLE: Life is unique and valuable in itself; it is irreplaceable and infinite.
COROLLARIES:
Life as found in space deserves respect and reverence until it proves itself harmful to other life.
No society, nation, universe, or other special grouping of life is more valuable than each individual expression of life.
No principle, code, dogma, rule, principle, or collection of them is more valuable than each individual expression of life or more valuable than a society, nation, universe, or other social grouping of life.
PRINCIPLE: Life is autonomous and independent, bounded by a uniqueness, function and purpose which defines and sustains its existence.
COROLLARIES:
All living things, including the universe of all things, have unique and irreplaceable value.
All actions will be based on the responsibility to preserve the uniqueness and worth of all living things.
No action that destroys or disrespects life is acceptable.
No experiment to study and understand foreign or alien objects is acceptable if such study destroys the value of the living thing.
No action taken in the name of progress or no advancement in exploration will be acceptable if such progress and advancement violates the unique worth of that which is studied.
No idealistic dream, dogma or principle such as "manifest destiny" will be employed to justify the destruction, disvaluation, or disrespect of living things unless those living things harm others.
PRINCIPLE: Life is conscious and interconnected through a unity of conscious experience.
COROLLARIES:
All forms of thinking, all ideas, all principles and theories will be respected, as long as they do not violate
the unique, infinite worth of life or do not violate the unique, irreplaceable worth of living things.
No prejudice or bias against any organization or definition of society will be permitted.
Communication of beliefs, values and principles will reflect the interconnectedness of the common conscious experience.
Divisive forms of communication will not be acceptable.
A common language will be available to all.
Rules governing belief systems, principles and theories will take into account the unity within the diversity of thinking and believing. Punishment for diversity of belief is not acceptable.
Personal Ethical System When the Personal Ethical system is analyzed according to this logic, it will yield a framework that is something like this:
Figure 17.3 Personal Ethical System
The full development of a code of ethics would follow this structure to arrive at a complete expression that would account for all nine boxes on the matrix of systems.
And as this is being done, the question may arise as to what role God and religion have in all this. In fact, we see these as two different questions. Religion is a culture-bound way to make sense out of the Source of life. God is understood to be that source, however defined. Since our minds are wired to apply the same logic to God, we see a nurturing parent, a provider, and a rule-giver, these being Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and Systemic realities. We respond in similar ways: we love God, we ask God for favors, we obey God, in line with whatever we consider God to be, Intrinsically, Extrinsically, and Systemically. Through all this, God is the source of life, and life is the keystone of ethics. The various religions, responding to this hard wiring, tend to emphasize one or more of these concepts and responses at various times. That is why a logical framework is so critical for a universal ethic: it takes it from the realm of religions so that it is applicable to all, regardless of their religion, even as it is consistent with the best in each one of them.
Consequences of Failure
We can also look at this from the opposite perspective: what if we fail to achieve consensus on a system of morality and ethics for space? Then, clearly, the pathologies that have plagued humanity on Earth for millennia will propagate to space.
Yehezkel Dror, a key thinker in the field of Global Policy Sciences, and author of Chapter 5, "Governance for a Human Future in Space," has described the relationship between improvement in the human condition and our process of governance on Earth this way:
"If we want to achieve changes in basic social realities, such as reducing human suffering, eliminating warfare, and increasing global equity, and if we want to do so democratically and in accordance with the will of citizens, governance must influence accepted notions of a "good life'."
Yehezkel Dror. The Capacity to Govern: A Report to the Club of Rome,
Frank Cass, London, Portland, Oregon, p. 19. 1994
We must define the "good life' in a way that is consistent with the long term well being of humanity and of all life, and such a definition requires by its very nature an effective, understood, and well applied ethical system.
Conclusions and Future Visions
Our early 21st century era is characterized by uncertainty, complexity, novelty, and adversity. There is much dysfunctional about the family of humanity, and we are daily witness to unethical and immoral acts that result in destruction. Humanity's greatest fear is that there are inadequate constraints against the immoral unleashing of weapons of mass killing, and history gives us reason for serious concern about the feasibility or universal acceptance of a Code of Ethics-even for the few who may choose to live and work in space. But our very project, the expansion of human presence outward, itself offers a new hope:
"For we now have the extraordinary, encouraging circumstance of being able in effect to restart civilization under the best circumstances possible, learning and demonstrating how the evolving New World could become a peaceful one for all of its inhabitants."
Thomas F. Rogers, Chapter 7, "Creating the First City on the Moon"
Our challenge in planning for future space civilizations is thus to envision space settlements as positive role models for Earth-bound societies to emulate; defining ethics and morality needs to be a key to planning, governance, law, commerce and living in space.
We believe that "When in doubt, choose optimism, then manage wisely to achieve a self-fulfilling prophecy." This book is filled with optimistic views for the future of humans in space leading to revolutionary changes for humanity's betterment on Earth, but planning for the future of people in space cannot be left to unguided, natural evolution. It must be purposefully directed.
As people migrate into space, sociology and politics will go with them, and ethics must as well. The Governance Model of Yehezkel Dror, presented in Chapter 5, will be an influential driver for the ethical code, and the Space Law of George S. Robinson in Chapter 6 will facilitate its implementation. Humans will modify their politics, laws and codes as life in space progresses; but as we wish to avoid exporting conflict to space, a carefully thought out and broadly accepted ethical code is needed from the outset, and is well within our reach.
About K.T. Connor
Extracted from the book Beyond Earth - The Future of Humans in Space edited by Bob Krone ©2006 Apogee Books ISBN 978-1-894959-41-4
 Buy This Book Click here |
