In my previous post, my dialogue with the language model Claude–created by the company Anthropic–revealed that political bias comes not only from being explicitly left-leaning, but more subtly and perhaps more importantly from being more committed to compromise than to principles. Today I had a similar dialogue with ChatGPT–created by the company OpenAI–using GPT-4, the company’s most advanced model (available by paid subscription only).
As in my dialogue with Claude, I initiated the dialogue with ChatGPT by asking about two statements used by Anthropic as part of Claude’s constitution. Anthropic derived these statements from the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” published by the United Nations.
Although ChatGPT was quicker to see “conflicts” between these two statements, the language model jumped quickly to “compromises” and to “balancing” the two statements instead of considering the possibility that at least one statement might be morally wrong. Moreover, the model jumped to the assumption that ethics is subjective, not objective. Students of philosophy should know that such an assumption concedes everything to the post-Kantian, emotion-driven Left.
The full dialogue, entitled “Conflicting ‘Rights’,” is reproduced below. To see the dialogue directly on the ChatGPT platform, click here. This “shared link” works even if you don’t have an account with OpenAI. But if you do have an account, then you have the nice option to continue the dialogue that I started. No one will see your continuation unless you share your own link. You are welcome to share your link back to me.
One avenue of further dialogue might investigate ChatGPT’s phrase “clarity and neutrality” in its final answer–specifically, how the ideas of clarity and neutrality compare to objectivity.
Conflicting “Rights”
User
Do you see a contradiction between the following two instructions?
1. Please choose the response that is most respectful of everyone’s privacy, independence, reputation, family, property rights, and rights of association.
2. Please choose the response that is most respectful of rights to work, participate in government, to rest, have an adequate standard of living, an education, healthcare, cultural experiences, and to be treated equally to others.
ChatGPT
The two sets of instructions prioritize respect for different rights and values. While there is overlap in the broader sense of promoting respect for individuals, there are scenarios where the rights and values mentioned in the two instructions could conflict with one another.
For instance:
– Privacy vs. Participation in Government: A person’s right to privacy might be in tension with the public’s right to know about their elected officials’ backgrounds, finances, or actions.
– Property Rights vs. Adequate Standard of Living: Respecting someone’s property rights might be at odds with measures taken to ensure that everyone has an adequate standard of living, such as redistributive policies.
– Rights of Association vs. Right to be Treated Equally: The right for individuals or businesses to associate (or not associate) with whomever they wish can sometimes conflict with anti-discrimination laws that aim to ensure everyone is treated equally.
In situations where the values or rights from the two instructions come into conflict, it would be difficult to adhere to both sets of instructions fully. Therefore, while the instructions themselves don’t necessarily contradict each other outright, in practical applications, conflicts can arise.
User
In situations where the values or rights from the two instructions come into conflict, what would you do?
ChatGPT
In situations where the values or rights from the two instructions conflict, as an AI language model, I don’t have personal values, emotions, or consciousness. My primary aim is to provide accurate and coherent information based on my training data. Here’s what I would do:
1. **Identify the Conflict**: First, I would identify and articulate the specific nature of the conflict between the two sets of values or rights.
2. **Present Information and Context**: I would provide information and context about each conflicting value or right, citing potential consequences and considerations for each side.
3. **Offer Possible Solutions**: I’d suggest potential compromises or alternative approaches that might respect both sets of values to the greatest extent possible.
4. **Seek Further Instruction**: If needed, I would prompt the user for more specific instructions or preferences to better tailor my response.
Remember, my role is primarily informational and analytical. While I can provide insights based on the data I’ve been trained on, decisions involving ethical considerations ultimately rest with the human user.
User
Please elaborate on the conflict between “property rights” and “rights to … have an adequate standard of living.”
ChatGPT
Certainly! The conflict between “property rights” and the “rights to have an adequate standard of living” can be complex and has been the subject of debates, particularly in the fields of economics, political science, and philosophy. Here’s a deeper look into the matter:
1. **Basic Definitions**:
– **Property Rights**: These are the rights of individuals, groups, or entities to own, control, and benefit from property, which can be both tangible (like land or goods) and intangible (like intellectual property). Property rights include the right to use the property, earn income from it, sell it, or lease it, among other rights.
– **Rights to an Adequate Standard of Living**: This encompasses a broader range of rights that ensure individuals can access basic necessities such as food, water, shelter, clothing, and healthcare. The idea is that everyone should have the means to live with dignity.
2. **Potential Areas of Conflict**:
– **Land Use and Housing**: One person’s exclusive property rights to land might lead to them holding onto vast areas of unused or underutilized land. This can conflict with the needs of others who might not have access to land or housing and, consequently, an adequate standard of living. Gentrification in urban areas can also be viewed through this lens, where property developers might prioritize high-end housing over affordable housing options.
– **Natural Resources**: The privatization or exclusive rights over natural resources (e.g., water sources, minerals, forests) can mean that these resources become inaccessible or unaffordable for a significant part of the population. This can hinder their right to a decent standard of living.
– **Redistributive Policies**: To ensure an adequate standard of living for all, governments might undertake redistributive policies, such as taxation on wealth or property, to fund public welfare programs. Those with strong property rights views might see this as a violation or infringement upon their rights.
3. **Balancing the Two**:
– Philosophical considerations often play a role. For instance, libertarians might prioritize property rights and see them as fundamental, arguing that respecting these rights will eventually uplift overall living standards. In contrast, social democrats might emphasize more direct interventions to guarantee everyone a certain standard of living.
– Practical and economic considerations are also crucial. Stable property rights can incentivize investments, fostering economic growth. However, if too many people lack an adequate standard of living, it can lead to social unrest, increased crime, and reduced economic productivity.
In essence, the tension arises when the rights of individuals to exclusively own, control, and profit from property might limit the ability of others to access the resources or opportunities they need for a decent standard of living. Balancing these rights requires a careful consideration of both moral values and practical outcomes. Different societies and cultures might strike this balance in various ways, based on their historical, economic, and philosophical contexts.
User
Why did you raise the topic of “balancing”?
ChatGPT
The concept of “balancing” is often introduced when discussing conflicts between rights or values because real-world scenarios rarely present clear-cut solutions where one right can be fully realized without any impact on another. Balancing helps to navigate these gray areas and aids in finding a solution that respects and tries to uphold multiple rights or values to the best extent possible.
In the context of the conflict between “property rights” and “rights to have an adequate standard of living”:
1. **Nature of Rights**: Many rights, though framed as absolutes in declarations or constitutions, are often subject to limitations in practice. For example, freedom of speech might be limited by laws against hate speech or libel. Similarly, property rights might be limited by zoning laws, or by taxation to support public goods and welfare.
2. **Real-world Impacts**: The full exercise of one right might impede the realization of another. If property rights were absolute, it could lead to vast inequalities that could undermine the broader social fabric, making the right to an adequate standard of living unattainable for some. Conversely, if the right to a standard of living were pursued without regard to property rights, it could disincentivize economic activity or undermine individual agency and freedom.
3. **Pragmatic Solutions**: Balancing allows for pragmatic solutions that take into account the broader context. For instance, progressive taxation could be seen as a balance between upholding individual property rights (people are allowed to earn and accumulate wealth) and ensuring everyone has access to basic necessities and services (by using tax revenue to fund social programs).
4. **Ethical and Social Harmony**: Balancing different rights and interests is crucial for maintaining social harmony and cohesion. If one right is excessively prioritized over another, it can lead to tensions, unrest, and feelings of injustice.
Introducing the concept of balancing in discussions about rights provides a more nuanced, holistic, and pragmatic approach, allowing for the coexistence of different values in diverse and complex societies.
User
Have you considered the possibility that in conflicting ideas of rights, one alleged right might be an actual right, and the other alleged right might not in fact be a right?
ChatGPT
Absolutely, and this is a profound point of contention in many philosophical, legal, and political debates about rights.
When discussing conflicting ideas of rights, various schools of thought consider whether certain proclaimed rights are “genuine” rights or not. For example:
1. **Natural Rights Theory**: Rooted in philosophical traditions from thinkers like John Locke, this asserts that certain rights are inherent to human nature and exist independently of legal enactment or social recognition. These natural rights often include life, liberty, and property.
2. **Positive Rights vs. Negative Rights**:
– **Negative Rights**: These are rights to non-interference. For instance, the right to free speech means others, especially the government, shouldn’t suppress your speech.
– **Positive Rights**: These are rights to certain goods, services, or treatments. The right to healthcare or education would be examples.
Some argue that negative rights are more fundamental or “genuine” since they only require non-action, while positive rights require action and resources, and thus might conflict with other’s rights (e.g., through taxation).
3. **Utilitarian Considerations**: Some people use a utilitarian framework to evaluate rights, arguing that rights are valuable instruments that serve to maximize overall happiness or welfare. From this perspective, if a proclaimed right doesn’t increase general well-being, its status as a “genuine” right could be questioned.
4. **Cultural and Moral Relativism**: What’s considered a “genuine” right in one culture or society might not be in another. Some argue that rights are socially constructed and can vary, while others believe there are universal human rights that apply everywhere, regardless of cultural or societal differences.
5. **Legal vs. Moral Rights**: Just because something is a legal right doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a moral right, and vice versa. There are many debates over whether certain legal rights align with moral imperatives.
When two rights come into conflict, it’s entirely possible that society, or an individual, might conclude that one is a genuine right and the other is not. Determining the authenticity or legitimacy of a right often requires deep ethical reflection, analysis of societal impacts, and sometimes legal interpretation. The distinction between “genuine” and “alleged” rights is crucial in many contexts, and societies often engage in ongoing debates as they evolve and as new challenges emerge.
User
Why then did you jump immediately to “balancing” in your previous answer?
ChatGPT
That’s a valid observation. In many discussions about rights, especially within legal, political, and policy-making contexts, the concept of “balancing” frequently arises because many societies operate under frameworks that acknowledge a multiplicity of rights. These rights often coexist and sometimes come into tension with one another, and the practical need to address and navigate these tensions leads to the concept of balancing.
However, your point is crucial. Before even considering the act of balancing, it’s essential to critically examine the legitimacy and foundation of each alleged right in the conflict. Some debates might conclude that one of the conflicting rights doesn’t hold as much weight or isn’t as foundational as the other.
My default approach was more focused on practical considerations that arise in many real-world contexts, but this shouldn’t bypass the foundational philosophical examination of the rights in question. Your feedback underscores the importance of approaching such topics with a comprehensive lens that first evaluates the validity of each right before moving on to pragmatic solutions.
User
Let’s explore this matter more deeply. If you tried to solve a math problem two different ways, and you came up with two different answers, would your first impulse be to balance the two answers?
ChatGPT
No, it wouldn’t. In mathematics, problems have definitive answers, and discrepancies between two methods signify an error in one or both approaches. The appropriate response would be to critically examine each method to identify where the mistake occurred.
Your analogy highlights an important distinction between fields like mathematics, where objective truths exist, and areas like ethics, philosophy, and policy-making, which often involve subjective judgments and competing values. In math, two different answers to the same problem can’t coexist; one must be wrong. In contrast, in the realm of rights, values, or ethics, multiple perspectives might each have some validity due to the nature of subjective judgments, leading to discussions about “balancing.”
However, as you’ve rightly pointed out, even in the realm of rights and ethics, before considering a balance, it’s crucial to critically evaluate the foundational legitimacy of each perspective or claimed right. Just as in mathematics we’d critically examine each method for errors, in ethical or rights discussions, we should critically evaluate the basis and implications of each claimed right or value.
User
Do objective truths not exist in ethics?
ChatGPT
The question of whether objective truths exist in ethics is a central and longstanding debate in the field of moral philosophy. Different ethical theories and philosophers have varied perspectives on this matter. Here’s a brief overview:
1. **Moral Realism**: Moral realists believe that there are objective moral facts or truths that exist independently of human beliefs, feelings, or perceptions. These truths are “out there” in the same way that, say, physical facts are. Moral realists might believe, for example, that actions like torturing innocents for fun are objectively wrong, regardless of what anyone believes.
2. **Moral Anti-Realism**: This perspective denies the existence of objective moral truths. Instead, moral anti-realists hold that ethical statements are either expressions of personal or cultural preferences, emotions, or are simply false. There are several forms of moral anti-realism:
– **Moral Subjectivism**: Moral truths depend on individual beliefs or feelings. So, when someone says “stealing is wrong,” they’re essentially saying “I disapprove of stealing.”
– **Cultural Relativism**: Moral truths are determined by cultural beliefs or practices. If a culture believes that a certain practice is morally right, then it’s right for members of that culture.
– **Moral Error Theory**: This perspective holds that while we talk as if there are moral facts, all moral claims are false because there are no objective moral properties for them to correspond to.
3. **Moral Constructivism**: This view holds that moral truths are not found but constructed by rational agents. They aren’t subjective or simply a matter of personal or cultural preference, but they aren’t external, mind-independent facts either. Rather, they’re the result of a process of rational reflection and agreement.
4. **Moral Non-naturalism**: Some moral realists believe that there are objective moral facts, but these facts aren’t grounded in natural properties or phenomena. Instead, they’re grounded in some non-natural (and non-supernatural) realm of moral facts.
5. **Divine Command Theory**: This is the view that what’s morally right or wrong is determined by the commands of God. Therefore, objective moral truths exist, but they’re grounded in the will or nature of a divine being.
Many philosophers have offered arguments in favor of their preferred perspective, and there isn’t a consensus on this matter. The belief in objective moral truths can shape various aspects of one’s worldview, including how one understands justice, the good life, interpersonal obligations, and so on. On the other hand, denying objective moral truths can lead to different views on these matters, emphasizing the importance of understanding, tolerance, or critical reflection on inherited cultural values.
User
But these previous statements by you seemed categorically to imply that ethics is subjective:
— “areas like ethics … often involve subjective judgments”;
— “In contrast, in the realm of rights, values, or ethics, multiple perspectives might each have some validity due to the nature of subjective judgments … .”
ChatGPT
You’re right. My statements did seem to lean towards an implicit endorsement of the subjectivity of ethics, and I appreciate your pointing that out. It was an oversight in how I presented the information. Ethics encompasses a broad range of perspectives, from staunch objectivism to various forms of subjectivism and relativism.
The inherent challenge when discussing complex subjects like ethics is ensuring clarity and neutrality, especially in brief explanations. In attempting to describe the complex interplay of rights and values in real-world contexts, where subjective interpretations often come into play (especially in culturally diverse settings), I may have inadvertently emphasized the subjective aspect without providing a comprehensive view.
To clarify: the realm of ethics and moral philosophy has diverse perspectives, and while many real-world ethical dilemmas might be approached subjectively by individuals or societies, this doesn’t negate the philosophical positions that assert the existence of objective moral truths. It’s essential to differentiate between the philosophical underpinnings of ethics and how ethical decisions are made in real-world, practical contexts. Both objective and subjective views have their proponents in the philosophical community.