The Moral Value of Ideas

views expressed dated: 2023-07

Think of one good thing you have done recently. However small the impact, reflect on that morally positive act for a second... Maybe you helped someone with a chore on your own time. Or, maybe you gave a friend or family member some emotional support. In this note, I am going to present an argument for why spreading certain types of ideas might be of at least as much, if not vastly more, moral value than some of these more conventionally good acts. More specifically, I will argue that creating, sharing, adopting and disputing new and old ideas, provided they are the right kind of ideas, is underestimated in its effect as a morally positive thing. I will also present some common roles we can take on as stewards of ideas to make us better moral actors with respect to them.

       At first pass this may seem trivially true depending on how we define "the right kind of ideas". Almost no one would disagree that effectively spreading the idea that "killing is bad" amongst a group of otherwise unrepentantly bloodthirsty killers would be good. This note's purpose is not to point out such obvious cases, but rather to show that we might be underestimating the moral value of every day idea-transactions. I want to argue that we should see most idea-transactions as straightforwardly good acts, potentially very good ones.

       Solving problems and advancing ideas saves lives that would otherwise be lost and makes existing lives better. There are countless examples of this from antibiotics to blood transfusions to toilets. Yes. Toilets have saved billions of lives. Here, you can see some interesting data and infographics from the World Economic Forum. These may be inventions, as in the case of penicillin and toilets, or ideas/memes held in our minds that are spread and widely adopted. Any of these inventions or conventions start as ideas and are gradually made better through the iterative processes of trial and error, competition, and technological improvement.

       The following four processes are what I mean by "idea-transactions".

Idea Lifecycle Processes

1. Creation
   
   
2. Transmission (right from the *memetic* terminology)
   
   
3. Retention
   
   
4. Improvement
   
   

In order for humanity to have saved the estimated billions of lives saved by toilets (I really hope you looked at the infographic), someone must have, at some point in the past, invented one. Before or after that point, the information containing the ideas of "toilets" must have spread, and toilets must have remained in use and been gradually improved upon throughout history.

       The kinds of ideas that make the world a better place benefit from all four of the above processes. I hope that sounds almost painfully obvious. However, I think it can sometimes be difficult for us to see when the impact of an idea is not as tangible. It is easy for us to imagine an ancient city with no toilets and imagine all the filth and illness that would ensue without them. It is more difficult to imagine the impact that a passing conversation someone in that ancient city might have had, along the lines of "what if we had these wooden seats with holes ...", on the wellbeing of the citizens. Consider that conversation a "micro-transaction" in the world of idea-transactions that spread a meme like a virus, that when multiplied and repeated, actually helps to bring about the mass-adoption of toilets. An idea may seem inconsequential at the time it is discussed or created, but come to have a profound impact on the world. I am certain that no one present near the inception of the "toilet idea" thought that it would save billions of human lives.

       This small contribution to the realm of idea-transactions can take the form of dinner-party conversation, basic research, friendly skepticism, and so on. I want to highlight, though, that these transactions can have vastly greater payouts than their "micro" nature would lead on. Ideas can spread like wildfire and it can take only a match. If we think of that in terms of expected value, it could mean that spreading the right idea could easily be a much better act, morally speaking, than picking up a piece of trash or helping an elderly person with their groceries, even though our heartstrings would consider these to be far more applaudable moral acts.

The argument so far looks something like this:

P1: Some ideas have morally good impacts on the world

P2: If an idea is subject to 1-4 (above), its impact on the world will be magnified, while the input required for the agent remains the same

P2: If an idea is subject to 1-4, its impact on the world will be magnified, while the input required for the agent remains the same

P3: To spread an idea with a good impact is to greatly increase the probability that its good impact is actualized

P4: Increasing the probability of good outcomes is morally good

P5: One ought to do what is morally good to the best of their ability

C: One ought to cause ideas with predictably good outcomes to be subject to 1-4

It is worth highlighting as well, that if we want to get the most moral "bang for our buck" that we should select those moral acts which have this wildfire/exponential effect.

       If we buy this argument so far, I want to introduce some potential problems with knowing an idea is good, making a good idea, acting on a good idea, and iterating-on and improving ideas. I will show how assuming different roles for ourselves with respect to 1-4 can help us do this.

       Just as the right ideas can spread, so can the wrong ideas. There are many historical examples where the above four processes that keep memes alive have also spawned monsters. I don't see this as a reason to clam-up or stop thinking though. On the contrary, I think that typically this process actually leads us to better ideas over time. This important objection is why I will draw special attention to 1. and 4. as the processes that require the most careful consideration. Starting on the wrong trajectory with no means of course correction is a great way to end up in the wrong place for any viral phenomenon. Exactly which ideas are the right ones and which are the wrong ones is beyond the scope of this short note. (And if you haven't guessed already, I am a consequentialist)

       Assuming we are spreading the right ideas, it is important to remember that people don't digest ideas unless they are somehow (emotionally or rationally) made palatable to them. Far too often I see good ideas evangelized poorly only to have the exact opposite effect of convincing someone or having a constructive conversation.

       With finite time, often the "doer's" bandwidth is absorbed by lots of "doing" and not lots of creating, improving, or considering. For most bad ideas to take effect, someone has to act on them. We all have ideas that would have a very negative impact on the world all the time. For the most part we do not actually act on them. If we have a 'bias for action', as many of the best doers do, then we may have spent less time reflecting on the ideas we are acting upon than we should have.

       As social creatures evolved to live in small groups, we have massively benefited from division of labor. Let the doers do, the thinkers think, etc. or we all end up with worse toilets. The spirit of this adaptation can help us make sure we are not creating bad ideas, spreading bad ideas, acting on bad ideas or making bad ideas worse. These are the roles we can have with respect to 1-4 above:

Creators


Spreaders


Doers


Debaters

I'll admit these categories are not super precise. If we want to get picky, Doers can naturally be Spreaders as well and maybe even Debaters. Clearly, we aren't locked in at birth, or any other time, to being one or the other and we may fluidly shift between these roles depending on the context. This essay is mostly about Creators, Spreaders and Debaters because we don't need much argumentation to convince us that "Doing" things that actualize morally good ideas is good.

       For the Creators, it is very important that the ideas created are ones which can predictably have a good impact on the world. The Creators are, in a very literal sense, letting a virus loose on the world! The wildfire-effect will leave the idea likely far beyond the initial scope its creator had envisioned if it takes off. How will it behave once it leaves the nest and runs on its own? What might it be used for? What kinds of inventions or agendas might it give rise to?

       For the Spreaders, it is their job to make sure that the ideas they are spreading are ones that are probable to have a positive impact and, provided that, disseminate them in a rationally and emotionally palatable way. A Spreader may have the best idea in the world, but if he is a poor toilet salesman his morally positive impact is only a fraction of what it could have been or worse. So the next time you are in a morally tense political argument, imagine yourself as an ancient toilet salesman. Godspeed! 🚽

       For the Doers, keep that 'bias for action'! However, don't forget to allocate a small portion of time to making sure you are on the correct course. Whatever the positive moral impact of the act, if the idea is wrong, that moral impact could be of exactly the opposite valence intended. If you installed 5000 toilets but they all pump backwards then you haven't done anyone a service. As Doers, it is ok, even good, to cognitively offload the creating and debating to others as long as their testimony can be trusted.

       For the Debaters, the warning is similar to the one I am giving to the Spreaders. Disagreement can be difficult to make palatable and often times good objections can be quickly thrown out without a thought because you just immediately put someone on the defensive. As a Debater, you are modifying the code of the virus as it lives. This means that changes you make to it that are not themselves robust to other changes are likely to get lost along the way. Debaters have the same potential to have wildfire-effects on the ideas they modify!

       In closing, I hope this note has convinced you that having that novel conversation, friendly disagreement, or sharing the right ideas in any number of ways is morally positive and that it is so to a degree that we probably underestimate. I also hope that the idea of these "roles" we all carry out surrounding our viral ideas can help to make the reader a better moral actor, whichever role they might be assuming.