This doesn’t really add anything to the discussion, and certainly doesn’t provide any solutions, but I find it satisfying to view the alignment problem as a special case of ethics.
Well, I do think it's worth noting that (granting the Biblical frame) God failed to align humans, even a chosen subset of humans, despite complete control of our source code, complete control over our initial conditions, and the ability to intervene in any way at any time to provide additional training data. And that both rule and virtue based approaches are insufficient given a mind whose underlying structure is not already inclined towards the 'right' shape. And that AFAICT even if we generalize to see all religions as different attempts at alignment of humans, the result does not typically look like a balance of forces that results in overall human flourishing and moral progress, though it sometimes does achieve that. And that at higher levels of capabilities our adherence to the original alignment restrictions changes and typically decreases.
Pretty interesting take, I especially liked your mind-shape idea.
Another way to view faith is an attempt to find "God's will" which is like a vector pointing toward an undefined point (God) which represents an idealized version of the best possible outcome of things. Ideally, a person of faith is always adjusting the vector of the direction of their lives (based on the outcomes of things), and not intentionally taking a vector known to point away from God (sin).
Some people think religion is useless, but actually, this approach is similar to the process of achieving any complex goal. Only, goals can be wrong to begin with unless the goal is God, which is the correct goal by definition. The Bible is a set of stories, rules, and lessons that provide a shortcut to a well-aimed vector (rather than pure trial and error, which is a costly process).
The "idealized version of the best possible outcome of things" is an intimidatingly ambiguous concept, but why would we want to aim for anything less? Religion is a method to achieve this goal that has been refined and field-tested over thousands of years.
I have a feeling this might be a bit more complex. So I'd say there is vector pointing from where you are to where God want's you to be, and that if on each step you always minimize the distance, then you're getting closer to what God wants as the crow flies, but that there are a bunch of traps, detours and other such things along the way. And that if you just directly follow the vector, you'll probably end up in a bad place because you'll take a bad path.
So just following the vector would be a form of consequentialism, where a naive approach ends with you falling into a hole from which you can't get out, or ending under a cliff which you can't climb. And the main value of religion (either as God's laws, or a collection of known paths) is that it will lead you along a safe road, even if that doesn't always seem to be pointing in the right direction.
I like how you frame searching for God's will as a facet of a more general process, where often the best road to a very complex goal might seem pointless or at least strange.
Epistemic status: an attempt to shoehorn 3000 years of thought into a different framework that works surprisingly well. A lot of obvious points to most people here
There are three basic approaches to ethics, each focusing on a different aspect:
| Name | Focus | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Virtue Ethics | Integrity | Greek heros |
| Deontology | Rules | Kant |
| Consequentialism | Outcomes | “The ends justify the means” |
Most schools of ethics are a mixture of the three, but you can find some examples of purish versions, e.g. Stoicism is a pretty pure form of Virtue Ethics, Kant’s categorical imperative an example of Deontology, and Utilitarism an example of Consequentialism.
Each of the approaches is useful and valid, but not always in the same contexts. Especially when taken to absurd limits. The obvious problem with virtue ethics is that it’s not very objective. Deontology has interesting failure modes with too rigorous adherence to rules, e.g. the common thought experiment with the Gestapo knocking at your door asking if you have hidden Jews (though check this for an interesting counterpoint), while utilitarism leads to the Repugnant Conclusion (with Scott Alexander’s commentary here).
In general, it seems like Consequentialism is the obviously correct one. After all, the whole point of ethics is coming up with a way of behaving that will result in good outcomes. The problem with that is that humans are generally not omniscient. Which makes it hard to work out what the consequences of any given action will be. It’s all very well that you want to end suffering, but if by feeding that hungry child you support the next Hitler, then there is a case to be made that you maybe shouldn’t. Robbing the rich to feed the poor is an interesting example. Stealing 1% of a billionare’s money won’t really impact the rich person’s quality of life, but that money could drastically improve the lives of many poor people. That being said, a world where it’s normalised to forcibly and unpredictably redistribute wealth seems like a worse one than the current one. Or at least a lot more chaotic, and so requiring a lot more investment in preventive measures. It feels like the result would not be a more equal society, rather a less trusting one, with large sums being put into stopping would-be Robbin Hoods from stealing things. Not to mention slippery-slopes, where the redistribution is from anyone better off than me to anyone worse off (which means pretty much all of society is worried).
So consequentialism is best in theory, but not practical. This is where the other two come in. They are very much practical. So simple, a four year old child could understand them. And usually do - bringing up children generally entails teaching them basic moral/social/house laws (“you’re not allowed to go out after dark”) and teaching them to be good people (“a good girl wouldn’t have said that”). A good parent will of course also introduce consequentialism into the mix (“how do you think Bobby will feel if you do that?”), especially when the child starts asking why they can’t put their hand on the hot stove, but a large portion of education is ingraining that one should be a good person (Virtue Ethics) and follow the rules (Deontology). In other words, they’re good heuristics in a world of imperfect knowledge and foresight. This is why, if you feel you’ll be a bad person if you murder Hitler, or that your moral code doesn’t allow you to pay a bribe that will make it easier to give out mosquito nets, you should think long and hard about ignoring your scruples. In the long term, all too often the ends don’t justify the means. Not on net. This is Known, but I can’t recall/find any good expositions on this topic (though I didn’t look very hard…).
A large part of Christianity is about the Jews having the old covenant (i.e. Moses’ law), while Christians are now under Grace and aren’t bound by the old law. Though of course most Christians will say that some of the law still applies, e.g. the ten commandments (at least the famous ones - most forget about the other ten commandments). This can be quite controversial - there are all kinds of arguments about which rules still apply to Christians, some seemingly trivial, e.g. dietary laws or tithing amounts, while other ones have direr consequences, e.g. capital punishment. Some of the laws are weird - e.g. the proscriptions against shellfish, or wearing clothes made of multiple materials, while others are obviously for public order, e.g. relieving oneself outside of camp or mycology.
The cannonical treaty of this topic, as well as a wonderful introduction to the ideas behind Christianity, is Paul’s letter to the Romans. I actually really appreciate this book, even as an atheist - I really enjoy how it’s all logically explained, starting from the basic assumptions, up to specific rules on how to live. One of the more interesting (to me, at least) things there, is that the Law (i.e. Moses’ law) was intended to be followed, but no one was expected to be able to. It sets out a set of rules which describe how to live so as to do nothing wrong. Which is to say, that any deviation from the rules, in any way, will result in a bad outcome (i.e. sin -> condemnation).
A lot of the New Testament is about how the Law no longer applies, because of Jesus’ sacrifice. So now Christians are free, but are expected to naturally do (or at least want) what God wants, i.e. be moral agents who strive to act in a way that pleases God.
So to a certain extent, the Bible can be simplified to Old Law = Deontology; New Law = Virtue Ethics. Which coincides nicely with bronze age, top down rule of might vs Greek philosophy with a focus on aretḗ.
This gets fun if you add Jesus into the mix (most of Christian theology is pretty much Paul’s interpretation of Jesus’s teachings). The Sermon on the Mount amounts to Jesus saying “you thought Moses’s law was restrictive? Let me take it up a notch”, after which he proceeds to seemingly ignore it, e.g. by working on the Sabbath. This seems to be a contradiction. Unless you posit that he really was the Son of God, or at least had quasi-omniscience. Then you can move from Virtue Ethics and Deontology into true Consequentialism, and so could act in accordance to the True Goal, rather than just following heuristics that would get there. Just as a master artisan can ignore the rules that a lesser mortal must follow - the master understands the underlying reason behind the rules.
My very much non-orthodox and most certainly heretical understanding of God’s laws is that God has a certain mind-shape envisioned that is Pleasing to Him. A being that has sinned, is a being that doesn’t conform exactly to that shape. Humans are only humans, and so can’t properly understand that shape. And so the Law was provided. The law is a guide how to get to that shape - don’t deviate from the law, and you’ll end up in a good conformation. The obvious problem being that it’s impossible to ideally follow the law, so people didn’t end up in that shape. There are also interesting attractor states nearby, when people focus on the law, rather than on what the law is for, or people deciding that the law is too hard to follow and coming up with their own laws. God’s second attempt (or refinement of the original approach) is to get people to focus on directly trying to have a shape that is like the correct shape, rather than just following the rules. The problem with this is that while the Law is a set of things you can and cannot do, the new law is more about ways you should and should not be, which is a lot harder to specify. It’s a lot harder to explain what you mean by “be hospitable” that simply saying “do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk”. And so a hundred flowers bloomed. Another problem with this approach is that encouraging people to try to end up in the correct shape can backfire when they think they understand the correct shape, but don’t. This is something that is often seen, where people argue about what God wants them to look like. Obviously at least one of them must be wrong, but people tend to be quite sure that they have the correct interpretation of God’s will (It’s interesting how often God seems to agree with what they’d like to do anyway…). Which comes back to the original idea of consequentialism being the best, but unworkable, hence the need for rules - in theory you can take a shortcut to go directly to the desired mind-shape, but that tends to end up badly with people ending up in <your favorite heresy/reviled pseudo-christian group>.
I’m probably warped by reading too much about it, but I seem to see alignment-shaped issues wherever I look. In this case, it’s interpreting the Bible as an exercise in outer alignment. There’s also a healthy dose of inner alignment (most of the Old Testament is God trying to get Israel to follow His rules, usually by continuing the shootings till morale improves). That being said, the three approaches to ethics seem to fit here exceedingly well, with God wanting people to be a certain way, but only Jesus being able to directly get there (so he could act using consequentialism approaches), while normal mortals have a set of deontological rules (the Law + extra rules by Paul like women covering their hair when praying) with a hefty dose of virtue ethics.
This doesn’t really add anything to the discussion, and certainly doesn’t provide any solutions, but I find it satisfying to view the alignment problem as a special case of ethics. And also as a reverse God problem - God wants people to conform to a certain shape, while we want God (or at least a god machine) to conform to a certain (unspecified so far) shape.