Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Human Simulation: Perspectives, Insights, and Applications pp 21–40Cite as

Ethics, Computer Simulation, and the Future of Humanity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: New Approaches to the Scientific Study of Religion ((NASR,volume 7))

Abstract

This chapter explores some of the key ethical issues impacting the field of computer modeling and simulation (M&S) in general and “human simulation” in particular. The first section discusses the “code of ethics” that has been adopted by many societies within the professional M&S community. The second section takes up several examples of computational models of human ethics and simulations for ethical training. The third section presents a meta-ethical framework for guiding ethical analysis within M&S; this framework is not a set of ethical guidelines, but a toolkit for guiding ethical decision-making in this interdisciplinary endeavor. In the fourth section, we ask: even if we can model the origin and destiny of humanity, does that mean we should? Finally, in the conclusion we issue an ethical challenge to M&S professionals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ahrweiler, P. 2017. Agent-based simulation for science, technology, and innovation policy. Scientometrics 110 (1): 391–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2105-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bainbridge, William Sims. 2013. EGods: Faith versus fantasy in computer gaming. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, J.L. 2004. Why would anyone believe in God? Lanham: AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Born believers: The science of childhood religion. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P.L., and T. Luckmann. 1967. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binmore, Ken. 1994. Game theory and the social contract, Vol. 1: Playing fair. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birks, D., M. Townsley, and A. Stewart. 2012. Generative explanations of crime: Using simulation to test criminological theory. Criminology 50 (1): 221–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00258.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bissell, John, Camila Caiado, Sarah Curtis, Michael Goldstein, and Brian Straughan, eds. 2015. Tipping points: Modelling social problems and health. 1st ed. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom, Nick, and Eliezer Yudkowsky. 2014. The ethics of artificial intelligence. In The Cambridge handbook of artificial intelligence, 316–334. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botterbusch, Hope R., and R.S. Talab. 2009. Ethical issues in second life. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning 53 (1): 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0227-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, Mark. 2008. The social atom: Why the rich get richer, cheaters get caught, and your neighbor usually looks like you. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bynum, Terrell W. 2008. Milestones in the history of information and computer ethics. In The handbook of information and computer ethics, ed. Kenneth E. Himma and Herman T. Tavani, 25–48. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cederman, Lars-Erik, Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, and Julian Wucherpfennig. 2017. Predicting the decline of ethnic civil war. Journal of Peace Research 54 (2): 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343316684191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conte, Rosaria, Giulia Andrighetto, and Marco Campennì. 2014. Minding norms: Mechanisms and dynamics of social order in agent societies. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corten, Rense. 2014. Computational approaches to studying the co-evolution of networks and behavior in social dilemmas. 1st ed. Chichester: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dechesne, Francien, Gennaro Di Tosto, Virginia Dignum, and Frank Dignum. 2014. No smoking here: Values, norms and culture in multi-agent systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 21 (1): 79–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desai, Anand. 2012. Simulation for policy inquiry. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dignum, V., F. Dignum, S. A. Osinga, and G. J. Hofstede. 2010. Normative, Cultural and Cognitive Aspects of Modelling Policies.” In Proceedings – Winter simulation conference, 720–732. https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2010.5679115.

  • Elsenbroich, Corinna. 2014. It takes two to tango: We-intentionality and the dynamics of social norms. In The complexity of social norms, ed. Maria Xenitidou and Bruce Edmonds, 81–103. Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, Nigel, Petra Ahrweiler, Pete Barbrook-Johnson, Kavin P. Narasimhan, and Helen Wilkinson. 2018. Computational modelling of public policy. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 21 (1): 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldspink, Chris. 2014. Social norms from the perspective of embodied cognition. In The complexity of social norms, ed. Maria Xenitidou and Bruce Edmonds, 55–80. Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gore, Ross, Lemos Carlos, F. LeRon Shults, and Wesley J. Wildman. 2018. Forecasting changes in religiosity and existential security with an agent-based model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 21: 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson, Johan E., and Martin Peterson. 2012. A computer simulation of the argument from disagreement. Synthese 184 (3): 387–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, Jonathan. 2012. The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, Brian L., and Ross A. Jackson. 2013. Ontological implications of modeling and simulation in postmodernity. In Ontology, epistemology, and teleology for modeling and simulation, ed. Andreas Tolk, 890–103. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, Ronald Paul, and Alison Watkins. 2007. A simulation of moral behavior within marketing exchange relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 35 (3): 417–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0025-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Himma, Kenneth E., and Herman T. Tavani. 2008. The handbook of information and computer ethics. Hoboken: Wiley. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/agder/detail.action?docID=353290.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kettenis, Dirk L. 2000. Modeling and simulation impacts on society and the ethical dilemmas they create. Transactions of the Society for Computer Simulation International 17 (4): 181–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemos, Carlos M. 2017. Agent-based modeling of social conflict: From mechanisms to complex behavior. 1st ed. 2018 edition. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mascaro, Steven, Kevin B. Korb, Ann E. Nicholson, and Owen Woodberry. 2010. Evolving ethics: The new science of good and evil. Charlottesville: Imprint Academic. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/inu.30000127033425.

  • McLeod, John. 1986. But, Mr. President – Is it ethical? Proceedings of the 1986 Winter simulation conference, 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murrugarra, Ruth I., and William A. Wallace. 2017. Agent-based simulation for teaching ethics. In Proceedings of the 2017 Winter Simulation Conference, ed. W.K.V. Chan, A. D’Ambrogio, G. Zacharewicz, N. Mustafee, G. Wainer, and E. Page, 4220–4227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, Martin. 2014. The escalation of Ethnonationalist radicalization. Social Science Computer Review 32 (3): 312–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313511585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1989. On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo. ed. Walter Kaufmann, Reissue edition. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ören, Tuncer I. 2000. Responsibility, ethics, and simulation. Transactions 17 (4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ören, Tuncer I., Maurice S. Elzas, Iva Smit, and Louis G. Birta. 2002. Code of professional ethics for simulationists. In Summer computer simulation conference, 434–435. Society for Computer Simulation International; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pentland, Alex. 2014. Social physics: How good ideas spread -the lessons from a new science. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puga-Gonzalez, I., and C. Sueur. 2017. Friendships and social networks in an individual-based model of primate social behaviour. JASSS 20 (3). https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.3450.

  • Puga-Gonzalez, Ivan, Marina Butovskaya, Bernard Thierry, Charlotte Korinna Hemelrijk, and Stephen C. Pratt. 2014. Empathy versus parsimony in understanding post-conflict affiliation in monkeys: Model and empirical data. PLoS One 9 (3): e91262. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, John. 2005. A theory of justice: Original edition, Reissue edition. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehg, W. 2015. Discourse ethics for computer ethics: A heuristic for engaged dialogical reflection. Ethics and Information Technology 17 (1): 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-014-9359-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, Thomas C. 1971. Dynamic models of segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1 (2): 143–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumann, Paul L., Timothy W. Scott, and Philip H. Anderson. 2006. Designing and introducing ethical dilemmas into computer-based business simulations. Journal of Management Education 30 (1): 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562905280844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, N., A. Hart, J. Wilson, M. Livingston, D. Moore, and P. Dietze. 2016. The effects of extended public transport operating hours and venue lockout policies on drinking-related harms in Melbourne, Australia: Results from SimDrink, an agent-based simulation model. International Journal of Drug Policy 32: 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.02.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shults, F. LeRon. 2018. Can we predict and prevent religious radicalization? pp. 45–71 In Violent extremism in the 21st century: International perspectives, ed Gwenyth Øverland. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shults, F. LeRon, Ross Gore, Wesley J. Wildman, Justin E. Lane, Chris Lynch, and Monica Toft. 2018a. A generative model of the mutual escalation of anxiety between religious groups. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 21(4): 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shults, F. LeRon, Justin E. Lane, Saikou Diallo, Christopher Lynch, Wesley J. Wildman, and Ross Gore. 2018b. Modeling terror management theory: Computer simulations of the impact of mortality salience on religiosity. Religion, Brain & Behavior 8 (1): 77–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolk, Andreas. 2013. Truth, trust, and Turing – Implications for modeling and simulation. In Ontology, epistemology, and teleology for modeling and simulation, ed. Andreas Tolk, 1–26. Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017. Code of ethics. In The profession of modeling and simulation: Discipline, ethics, education, vocation, societies, Adn economics, ed. Andreas Tolk and Tuncer Oren, 35–52. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, Michael. 2012. Simulation and similarity: Using models to understand the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildman, Wesley J., and Richard Sosis. 2011. Stability of groups with costly beliefs and practices. JASSS 14 (3).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Global Development and Social Planning, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

    F. LeRon Shults

  2. Boston University and Center for Mind and Culture, Boston, MA, USA

    Wesley J. Wildman

  3. Center for Modeling Social Systems, Kristiansand, Norway

    F. LeRon Shults

  4. Center for Mind and Culture, Boston, MA, USA

    Wesley J. Wildman

Authors
  1. F. LeRon Shults
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wesley J. Wildman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. LeRon Shults .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Virginia Modeling Analysis and Simulation Center, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA

    Saikou Y. Diallo

  2. Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

    Wesley J. Wildman

  3. Institute for Global Development and Social Planning, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

    F. LeRon Shults

  4. The MITRE Corporation, Hampton, VA, USA

    Andreas Tolk

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Shults, F.L., Wildman, W.J. (2019). Ethics, Computer Simulation, and the Future of Humanity. In: Diallo, S., Wildman, W., Shults, F., Tolk, A. (eds) Human Simulation: Perspectives, Insights, and Applications. New Approaches to the Scientific Study of Religion , vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17090-5_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation