Towards Computer Simulations of Virtue Ethics

Jeremiah A. Lasquety-Reyes 1
  • 1 MECS, Leuphana Universität Lüneburg, Germany

Abstract

This article presents two approaches for computer simulations of virtue ethics in the context of agent-based modeling, a simple way and a complex way. The simple way represents virtues as numeric variables that are invoked in specific events or situations. This way can easily be implemented and included in social simulations. On the other hand, the complex way requires a PECS framework: physical, cognitive, emotional, and social components need to be implemented in agents. Virtue is the result of the interaction of these internal components rather than a single variable. I argue that the complex way using the PECS framework is more suitable for simulating virtue ethics theory because it can capture the internal struggle and conflict sometimes involved in the practice of virtue. To show how the complex way could function, I present a sample computer simulation for the cardinal virtue of temperance, the virtue that moderates physical desires such as food, drink, and sex. This computer simulation is programmed in Python and builds upon the well-known Sugarscape simulation.1

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Edited by Commissio Leonina. Vol. 4-12, Opera omnia iussu impensaque Leonis XIII P.M. edita. Rome: Typographia Polyglotta S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1888-1906.

  • Aquinas, Thomas. The “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas Aquinas. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. 2nd and Revised ed. London: Burns Oates and Washbourne, 1920.

  • Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Terence Irwin. 2nd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1999.

  • Axelrod, Robert. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books, 1984.

  • Balke, Tina, and Nigel Gilbert. “How Do Agents Make Decisions? A Survey.” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 17:4:13 (2014). doi: 10.18564/jasss.2687.

  • Danielson, Peter. Artificial Morality: Virtuous Robots for Virtual Games. London: Routledge, 1992.

  • Epstein, Joshua. Agent_Zero: Toward Neurocognitive Foundations for Generative Social Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013.

  • Epstein, Joshua, and Robert Axtell. Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1996.

  • Epstein, Joshua, and Julia Chelen. “Advancing Agent_Zero.” In Complexity and Evolution: Toward a New Synthesis for Economics, edited by David S. Wilson and Alan Kirman, 299-318. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2016.

  • Gauthier, David. Morals by Agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.

  • Hegselmann, Rainer, and Oliver Will. “Modelling Hume’s Moral and Political Theory—The Design of HUME1.0.” In Norms and Values: The Role of Social Norms as Instruments of Value Realisation, edited by Michael Baurmann, Geoffrey Brennan, Robert E. Goodin, and Nicholas Southwood, 205-232. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2010.

  • Hegselmann, Rainer. “Moral Dynamics.” In Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science 2009, edited by Robert Meyers, 5677-5692. New York: Springer, 2009.

  • Laird, John. The Soar Cognitive Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012.

  • MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. 3rd ed. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, [1981] 2007.

  • Mascaro, Steven. “Abortion, Rape and Suicide: Evolutionary ALife Investigations of Ethically Contentious Behaviour.” Doctor of Philosophy, Clayton School of Information Technology, Monash University, 2008.

  • Mascaro, Steven, Kevin Korb, and Ann Nicholson. “Suicide as an Evolutionarily Stable Strategy.” In Advances in Artificial Life, edited by Josef Kelemen and Petr Sosík, 120-132. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2001.

  • Mascaro, Steven, Kevin Korb, and Ann Nicholson. “A Life Investigation of Parental Investment in Reproductive Strategies.” In Artificial Life VIII: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Life, edited by Russell Standish, Mark A. Bedau, and Hussein A. Abbass, 358-361. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003.

  • Mascaro, Steven, Kevin Korb, Ann Nicholson, and Owen Woodberry. Evolving Ethics: The New Science of Good and Evil. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2010.

  • Rao, Anand, and Michael Georgeff. “BDI-Agents: From Theory to Practice.” In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multiagent Systems, June 12-14, 1995, 312-319. San Francisco: AAAI Press, 1995.

  • Reyes, Jeremiah. “Loób and Kapwa: An Introduction to a Filipino Virtue Ethics.” Asian Philosophy: An International Journal of the Philosophical Traditions of the East 25:2 (2015), 148-171.

  • Schelling, Thomas. “Models of Segregation.” The American Economic Review 59:2 (1969), 488-493.

  • Schelling, Thomas. Micromotives and Macrobehavior. New York: W. W. Norton, 1978.

  • Schmidt, Bernd. The Modelling of Human Behaviour. Ghent, Belgium: SCS-Europe BVBA, 2000.

  • Urban, Christoph. “PECS: A Reference Model for the Simulation of Multi-Agent Systems.” In Tools and Techniques for Social Science Simulation, edited by Ramzi Suleiman, Klaus Troitzsch and Nigel Gilbert, 83-114. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag, 2000.

  • Wiegel, Vincent. “SophoLab: Experimental Computational Philosophy.” Doctor of Philosophy, Technische Universiteit Delft, 2007.

  • Will, Oliver. “Hume1.0 - An Agent-Based Model on the Evolution of Trust in Strangers and Division of Labour.” In Multi-Agent-Based Simulation X, edited by Gennaro Di Tosto and H. Van Dyke Parunak, 123-134. Berlin: Spring-Verlag, 2010.

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Open Philosophy is an international Open Access, peer-reviewed academic journal covering all areas of philosophy. The objective of Open Philosophy is to foster free exchange of ideas and provide an appropriate platform for presenting, discussing and disseminating new concepts, current trends, theoretical developments and research findings related to the broadest philosophical spectrum.

Search