Ethics has usually been considered as the domain of the
intrinsic personal belief. Some even claimed that no
objective knowledge of ethics is possible. We propose
a quite new way of approaching the problem. Although
ethics as a part of the personal belief cannot be examined
scientifically, the claim that it is not possible to study
ethical rules as means of strategy choice is false. The
model we bring forward handles the role of ethical rules
from the perspective of evolutionary fitnes

Cetnarowicz, Krzysztof

English

Name not available

  87Social Ethic Behavior Simulation Project Krzysztof Cetnarowicz, Gabriel Rojek, Jan Werszowiec Płazowski, Marek Suwara, Cracow 1. Is ethics a part of personal knowledge and can there be an objective knowledge  of ethical rules?  Ethics has usually been considered as the domain of the intrinsic personal belief. Some even claimed that no objective knowledge of ethics is possible [1]. We propose a quite new way of approaching the problem. Although ethics as a part of the personal belief cannot be examined scientifically, the claim that it is not possible to study ethical rules as means of strategy choice is false. The model we bring forward handles the role of ethical rules from the perspective of evolutionary fitness [2].  Individuals act within a certain society, which is influ-enced rather by cultural “memes” than by individually gained experience. Psychologists would claim that an individual is a necessary source of any changes in culture, because of his/her creative capabilities. From evolutionary perspective such creations are, however, merely mutations in the memotype of the culture. These mutations are subject to selection processes, which do not depend on personal characteristics of individuals but rather on the fitness to the widely understood environment. This envi-ronment includes the material world, for which fitness of a cultural “meme” means “empirical truth”, as well as the cultural environment, for which the term fitness of a cultural “meme” refers to logical coherence with other “memes”.  Evolutionary approach provides a researcher with sev-eral advantages: it is possible to abstract from individual psychological aspects it is possible to observe objective development of a social system it is possible to study the influence of ethical criteria of choice on the social behavior it is possible to ask the question concerning what objec-tive aspects of ethics can be studied prospectively it is possible to study how different ethical rules evolve and the way they result from the state of the “world” and the way they influence on it. Such evolutionary approach seems to be the only rational way to evaluate intersubjective rules of ethics.  2. Distributed Artificial Intelligence (DAI) From philosophical perspective DAI is a cognitive system in which knowledge is possession of a whole system (population of individuals in the case of MAS – Multi Agent Systems). An individual is merely a carrier of such knowl-edge (or a part of it). Such approach lets us treat the agents in the way similar to biological individuals, which are subject to natural selection. Only two possibilities are open to an agent: it may die or survive in confrontation with its environment, which consists of two components: the “social” (other agents) and the “material” (the world, in which the agent acts). The real influence of selection rules on knowledge is seen only on the level of the population, where strategies are made temporarily stable. On this level advantageous features are strengthened and disadvanta-geous mutations are eliminated. Such evolutionary game takes place between the whole society (population) and the environment. Thus the way the population acts is more important than the fate of an individual. Intelligence as the adaptive means should reveal this feature. As Weiß [3], one of the prominent persons in DAI research, points out: “intelligence is deeply and inevitably connected with inter-action”.  The practical realization of computer simulation of MAS looks as follows: An agent is a part of computer code (program), which is able to act individually within its environment. There is no general definition of an agent but it is assumed that it has to possess learning capability, ability to create an internal model of its environment and the ability to choose the strategy of acting within its environment, based upon a certain (for the time being, a priori given, in the future perhaps self-modifiable) system of goals. An agent may act socially, creating temporal or stable structures of cooperation with other agents, which may result in specialization in certain actions. This may lead to more complex structures – aggregates of agents – for which the question of self-organization arises. This is not, however, the case of suggested simulation, although the problem of emerging of such structures is interesting in itself. The agent has two fundamental goals: to survive and to reproduce. The process of agent’s reproduction may be enriched by the crossing-over mechanism which allows for faster changes and thus increases the population’s flexibility. The agent has to be able to recognize other agents especially those which belong to his own population as potential partners for cooperation. The selection mechanisms act on individual agents through mechanisms of strengthening and elimination of “unsuccessful” agents. The observations, however, are concentrated on the whole population rather than on individual agents. The intelligence of the system is ana-lyzed in the light of effectiveness of the population in performing the desired actions. This is independent of the goals of individual agents, which are written into agents’ “profiles”.  One thing concerning the observations is also important. The suggested simulation lets us avoid a certain question about the position of the observer, who in the case of human societies is just a member of the society it examines. In the simulated population the place of the observer is external and, in a way, God-like. He/she is maybe not almighty but able to posses the complete knowledge of the system. The more detailed discussion of the agent’s profile is presented in the parts 4, 5 and 6 of the present paper. Let us only state here that suggested by some authors Social Ethic Behavior Simulation Project - Krzysztof Cetnarowicz, Gabriel Rojek, Jan Werszowiec Płazowski, Marek Suwara    88(Tuomela [4]) joint intentions or any other attempts to implement intentionality or self-consciousness into the agent’s profile lie far beyond the scope of our interest. There are two fundamental reasons. Firstly, we are not interested in getting the “human-like” society – with all psychological colorfulness of its participants – but rather the society that acts according to clear rules resulting from what philosophers are able to say about scientific cognition and ethics. Secondly, the evolutionary approach allows for treatment of psychological factors as irrelevant to the knowledge and the rules of acting, which are gained by the whole population.  3. Methodology – why simulate  ethical behaviors? The motivation for simulating ethics in computer environ-ment comes from two reasons. The first lies in computer practice where safety of a computer network depends upon the ability to meet the challenge produced by various negative actions taken by the users (like hackers) and the programs (viruses for instance). The other is purely cog-nitive. Computer simulations offer a clean (fully controlled) environment, in which it is possible to test certain philo-sophical concepts in their formal “unpolluted” (for instance by psychological factors) form. Of course one would claim that purely formal, logical analysis should be enough in such cases. This, however, is not true for the concepts based upon evolutionary approach, where purely deter-ministic predictions are not possible. The world of culture evolution is complex. Studying evolution requires observ-ing multiple generations, which in the case of real (human) society is impossible for purely biological reasons. This, however, does not apply to the societies simulated in computer environment.  Simulation requires simplification. The agents are able to learn and observe their environment and produce the world view. They possess knowledge, or being more precise, their beliefs are identical to the available informa-tion about the objects. This knowledge is personal but objective and it is a basis for decision taking. However, until now, the agents used to possess only intellectual capability (intellectual profile) – the ability to rationally analyze the situation. We suggest implementing two additional “profiles” – social and ethical – the former being responsible for the observations of the social environment, the latter corresponding to the rules governing evaluation of what is good or bad. Let us, notice that the core evaluation of being good or bad refers to the observable internal states of an “agent”. Those states determine the agent’s fitness to the environment thus deciding on the agent’s chance to survive.  4. Ethically-social approach to behavior estimation of an autonomic agent on the ground of M-agent architecture The proposed way to develop intelligent machines by creating “social” machines is the closest to reality if one assumes that intelligence resulted from the evolution and not by miraculous act of creation. The concept is based on the socio-biological theory that primate intelligence first evolved because of the need to deal with social interac-tions. The model is based on M-agent architecture intro-duced in [5], [6]. The main idea of the ethically-social estimation of an autonomic agent’s behavior is to provide the agent with two additional profiles: the ethical and the social. The ethical profile would cover operations that aim at: construction of „notion” about oneself on basis of one’s ethical rules, fulfillment of one’s ethical rules, updating and learning the ethical rules on the basis of the environment observation, particularly of those environment elements which are agents. The group of goals, decisions, operations and knowledge relating to social live mechanisms is named the social profile. This will perform the operations that aim at: fulfillment of living together rules in society, observation of environment, especially agents, „punishing” the agents, that do not fulfill rules of living together. The motto, which inspired formulating of such a solution is taken from [7]: “There is no society without morality”. Any human being taking decision about his/her action is also influenced by the ethical rules he/she knows. The effects of this action are, however, observed through other indi-viduals in society, who suitably, according to the social norms known to them, react on such behavior. The human being obviously watches those reactions and, if the reactions indicate his „bad” behavior, he changes his own ethical norms. Society has an indirect impact on the ethical system of such individual. The social and ethical profiles are inseparable and mutually supplementary. Social profiles of agents from the environment are an indirect influence on the ethical profile of the agent concerned, as it was shown in the last paragraph. Only thanks to these two profiles it is available to keep social and moral order in open systems, and thus to create mechanisms similar in safety to the ones well functioning in known societies.  Figure 1. Concept of social, ethical and intellectual profiles in M-agent architecture. 5. Social profile The social profile forms the class of the agent’s activity, which as its goal has the observation of other agents in the society and of other elements of the environment. Those observations should be done in order to distinguish individuals, which do not fulfill social and ethical rules and whose behavior is unfavorable, incorrect or bad according to the observer. The „bad” individuals should be ade-Social Ethic Behavior Simulation Project - Krzysztof Cetnarowicz, Gabriel Rojek, Jan Werszowiec Płazowski, Marek Suwara    89quately treated (e.g. convicted, avoided) which should be performed by the social profile. 6. Ethical profile The ethical profile is the class of agent activity, which as its goal has the fulfillment of one’s ethical rules and updating or learning the ethical rules on the basis of the environ-ment observation, particularly of those environment ele-ments which are agents.  The operator of agent’s ethical learning enables to change the ethical norms in order to be „better” treated in the society. 7. What can be simulated? Let us first sketch the general scheme of relations between the agent’s profiles [see Figure 2]   Here: The input is firstly dispersed into ethical, rational (intellec-tual) and social streams. Ethical, rational (intellectual) and social profiles could be interrelated. The output is a decision based upon a function of ethical, rational and social worldviews. Figure 2. General scheme of relations between agent’s profiles  The above scheme must be filled with certain realistic assumptions on various ethical models present in cultural tradition: 7.1 Ethics of moral law  Ethics of moral law is externally given and implemented in the E profile by the programmer and unmodifiable during the evolution. This would correspond to the ethics of natural law. The feedbacks go only from the ethical profile. Let us notice that it allows for simulating the behavior according to various sets of natural laws posing the programmer in God’s place. 7.2 Ethics of prize and punishment   Feedbacks here go bilaterally. They let the agent to modify its ethical worldview according to benefits achieved. Possibility of interaction between the social and ethical profiles is noteworthy here. This is, however restricted to the individual fitness of an agent. 7.3 “Cynics” ethics  The ethical profile is subdued to other profiles, which is realized by implementing the null starting profile. Ethical Social Ethic Behavior Simulation Project - Krzysztof Cetnarowicz, Gabriel Rojek, Jan Werszowiec Płazowski, Marek Suwara    90rules are constructed upon the changeable information coming from social and rational profile 7.4 Moral duty ethics  The feedback from the social profile dominates over the one from the ethical profile. The social rules form the shape of the ethical picture of the world, which is inde-pendent from rational evaluation 7.5 Null ethics  No ethical profile is implemented or allowed in future. It is possible to perform simulation of a single model or combine different models in a single simulation, which allows to compare the influence of several or even all profiles on fitness, which gives a competitive situation.  8. What can we learn from such simulations It is obvious that one should not expect learning anything about actually existing societies[8]. The purity and control-lable characteristics of the simulation allows, however, investigating: the impact of ethics on fitness of social groups, the differences between the fitness of different models of ethics the time dependent development of ethics in its social aspect Concluding one can have the first “empirical” means to study social states in their theoretically (philosophically) constructed forms.  References Moore G. E. Principia Ethica Prometheus, 1988. Płazowski J. W., Suwara M. Measuring the Uncertain...”, Proceed-ings of 25th Wittgenstein Symposium, Kirchberg 2002. Weiß G. Ecai-96 workshop on learning in distributed artificial intel-ligence. Call for Papers, 1996. Tuomela, R., 1996, ‘Philosophy and Distributed Artificial Intel-ligence: The Case of Joint Intention and Joint Action’, in Jennings, N. and O'Hare, G. (eds.), Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intel-ligence, Wiley, New York, pp. 487-503.  Cetnarowicz K. M-agent architecture based method of develop-ment of multiagent systems. Proc. of the 8th Join EPS-APS Inter-national Conference on Physics Computing, ACC Cyfronet, Kraków 1996. Cetnarowicz K., Nawarecki E., Żabińska M. M-agent architecture and its application to the agent oriented technology. Proc. of the DAIMAS’97. International workshop: Distributed Artificial Intelli-gence and Multi-Agent Systems, St. Petersburg, Russia 1997. Singer P. Przewodnik po etyce, Wydawnictwo „Książka i Wiedza”, Warszawa 1998, 2002. Płazowski J.W., Suwara M. Modelowanie Metafizyki Prace V Krajowej Konferencji “Modelowanie Cybernetyczne Systemów Biologicznych” Kraków 2000. 

Social Ethic Behavior Simulation Project

Elektronisch archivierte Theorie - Sammelpunkt

  87
Social Ethic Behavior Simulation Project 
Krzysztof Cetnarowicz, Gabriel Rojek, Jan Werszowiec Płazowski, Marek Suwara, 
Cracow 
1. Is ethics a part of personal knowledge 
and can there be an objective knowledge  
of ethical rules?  
Ethics has usually been considered as the domain of the 
intrinsic personal belief. Some even claimed that no 
objective knowledge of ethics is possible [1]. We propose 
a quite new way of approaching the problem. Although 
ethics as a part of the personal belief cannot be examined 
scientifically, the claim that it is not possible to study 
ethical rules as means of strategy choice is false. The 
model we bring forward handles the role of ethical rules 
from the perspective of evolutionary fitness [2].  
Individuals act within a certain society, which is influ-
enced rather by cultural “memes” than by individually 
gained experience. Psychologists would claim that an 
individual is a necessary source of any changes in culture, 
because of his/her creative capabilities. From evolutionary 
perspective such creations are, however, merely mutations 
in the memotype of the culture. These mutations are 
subject to selection processes, which do not depend on 
personal characteristics of individuals but rather on the 
fitness to the widely understood environment. This envi-
ronment includes the material world, for which fitness of a 
cultural “meme” means “empirical truth”, as well as the 
cultural environment, for which the term fitness of a cultural 
“meme” refers to logical coherence with other “memes”.  
Evolutionary approach provides a researcher with sev-
eral advantages: 
it is possible to abstract from individual psychological 
aspects 
it is possible to observe objective development of a 
social system 
it is possible to study the influence of ethical criteria of 
choice on the social behavior 
it is possible to ask the question concerning what objec-
tive aspects of ethics can be studied 
prospectively it is possible to study how different ethical 
rules evolve and the way they result from the state of the 
“world” and the way they influence on it. 
Such evolutionary approach seems to be the only rational 
way to evaluate intersubjective rules of ethics.  
2. Distributed Artificial Intelligence (DAI) 
From philosophical perspective DAI is a cognitive system 
in which knowledge is possession of a whole system 
(population of individuals in the case of MAS – Multi Agent 
Systems). An individual is merely a carrier of such knowl-
edge (or a part of it). Such approach lets us treat the 
agents in the way similar to biological individuals, which 
are subject to natural selection. Only two possibilities are 
open to an agent: it may die or survive in confrontation 
with its environment, which consists of two components: 
the “social” (other agents) and the “material” (the world, in 
which the agent acts). The real influence of selection rules 
on knowledge is seen only on the level of the population, 
where strategies are made temporarily stable. On this level 
advantageous features are strengthened and disadvanta-
geous mutations are eliminated. Such evolutionary game 
takes place between the whole society (population) and 
the environment. Thus the way the population acts is more 
important than the fate of an individual. Intelligence as the 
adaptive means should reveal this feature. As Weiß [3], 
one of the prominent persons in DAI research, points out: 
“intelligence is deeply and inevitably connected with inter-
action”.  
The practical realization of computer simulation of MAS 
looks as follows: 
An agent is a part of computer code (program), which is 
able to act individually within its environment. There is no 
general definition of an agent but it is assumed that it has 
to possess learning capability, ability to create an internal 
model of its environment and the ability to choose the 
strategy of acting within its environment, based upon a 
certain (for the time being, a priori given, in the future 
perhaps self-modifiable) system of goals. 
An agent may act socially, creating temporal or stable 
structures of cooperation with other agents, which may 
result in specialization in certain actions. This may lead to 
more complex structures – aggregates of agents – for 
which the question of self-organization arises. This is not, 
however, the case of suggested simulation, although the 
problem of emerging of such structures is interesting in 
itself. 
The agent has two fundamental goals: to survive and to 
reproduce. The process of agent’s reproduction may be 
enriched by the crossing-over mechanism which allows for 
faster changes and thus increases the population’s 
flexibility. 
The agent has to be able to recognize other agents 
especially those which belong to his own population as 
potential partners for cooperation. 
The selection mechanisms act on individual agents 
through mechanisms of strengthening and elimination of 
“unsuccessful” agents. The observations, however, are 
concentrated on the whole population rather than on 
individual agents. The intelligence of the system is ana-
lyzed in the light of effectiveness of the population in 
performing the desired actions. This is independent of the 
goals of individual agents, which are written into agents’ 
“profiles”.  
One thing concerning the observations is also important. 
The suggested simulation lets us avoid a certain question 
about the position of the observer, who in the case of 
human societies is just a member of the society it 
examines. In the simulated population the place of the 
observer is external and, in a way, God-like. He/she is 
maybe not almighty but able to posses the complete 
knowledge of the system. 
The more detailed discussion of the agent’s profile is 
presented in the parts 4, 5 and 6 of the present paper. Let 
us only state here that suggested by some authors 
Social Ethic Behavior Simulation Project - Krzysztof Cetnarowicz, Gabriel Rojek, Jan Werszowiec Płazowski, Marek Suwara 
 
 
 88
(Tuomela [4]) joint intentions or any other attempts to 
implement intentionality or self-consciousness into the 
agent’s profile lie far beyond the scope of our interest. 
There are two fundamental reasons. Firstly, we are not 
interested in getting the “human-like” society – with all 
psychological colorfulness of its participants – but rather 
the society that acts according to clear rules resulting from 
what philosophers are able to say about scientific cognition 
and ethics. Secondly, the evolutionary approach allows for 
treatment of psychological factors as irrelevant to the 
knowledge and the rules of acting, which are gained by the 
whole population.  
3. Methodology – why simulate  
ethical behaviors? 
The motivation for simulating ethics in computer environ-
ment comes from two reasons. The first lies in computer 
practice where safety of a computer network depends 
upon the ability to meet the challenge produced by various 
negative actions taken by the users (like hackers) and the 
programs (viruses for instance). The other is purely cog-
nitive. Computer simulations offer a clean (fully controlled) 
environment, in which it is possible to test certain philo-
sophical concepts in their formal “unpolluted” (for instance 
by psychological factors) form. Of course one would claim 
that purely formal, logical analysis should be enough in 
such cases. This, however, is not true for the concepts 
based upon evolutionary approach, where purely deter-
ministic predictions are not possible. The world of culture 
evolution is complex. Studying evolution requires observ-
ing multiple generations, which in the case of real (human) 
society is impossible for purely biological reasons. This, 
however, does not apply to the societies simulated in 
computer environment.  
Simulation requires simplification. The agents are able to 
learn and observe their environment and produce the 
world view. They possess knowledge, or being more 
precise, their beliefs are identical to the available informa-
tion about the objects. This knowledge is personal but 
objective and it is a basis for decision taking. However, 
until now, the agents used to possess only intellectual 
capability (intellectual profile) – the ability to rationally 
analyze the situation. We suggest implementing two 
additional “profiles” – social and ethical – the former being 
responsible for the observations of the social environment, 
the latter corresponding to the rules governing evaluation 
of what is good or bad. Let us, notice that the core 
evaluation of being good or bad refers to the observable 
internal states of an “agent”. Those states determine the 
agent’s fitness to the environment thus deciding on the 
agent’s chance to survive.  
4. Ethically-social approach to behavior 
estimation of an autonomic agent on the 
ground of M-agent architecture 
The proposed way to develop intelligent machines by 
creating “social” machines is the closest to reality if one 
assumes that intelligence resulted from the evolution and 
not by miraculous act of creation. The concept is based on 
the socio-biological theory that primate intelligence first 
evolved because of the need to deal with social interac-
tions. The model is based on M-agent architecture intro-
duced in [5], [6]. 
The main idea of the ethically-social estimation of an 
autonomic agent’s behavior is to provide the agent with 
two additional profiles: the ethical and the social. The 
ethical profile would cover operations that aim at: 
construction of „notion” about oneself on basis of one’s 
ethical rules, 
fulfillment of one’s ethical rules, 
updating and learning the ethical rules on the basis of 
the environment observation, particularly of those 
environment elements which are agents. 
The group of goals, decisions, operations and knowledge 
relating to social live mechanisms is named the social 
profile. This will perform the operations that aim at: 
fulfillment of living together rules in society, 
observation of environment, especially agents, 
„punishing” the agents, that do not fulfill rules of living 
together. 
The motto, which inspired formulating of such a solution is 
taken from [7]: “There is no society without morality”. Any 
human being taking decision about his/her action is also 
influenced by the ethical rules he/she knows. The effects 
of this action are, however, observed through other indi-
viduals in society, who suitably, according to the social 
norms known to them, react on such behavior. The human 
being obviously watches those reactions and, if the 
reactions indicate his „bad” behavior, he changes his own 
ethical norms. Society has an indirect impact on the ethical 
system of such individual. 
The social and ethical profiles are inseparable and 
mutually supplementary. Social profiles of agents from the 
environment are an indirect influence on the ethical profile 
of the agent concerned, as it was shown in the last 
paragraph. Only thanks to these two profiles it is available 
to keep social and moral order in open systems, and thus 
to create mechanisms similar in safety to the ones well 
functioning in known societies. 
 
Figure 1. Concept of social, ethical and intellectual 
profiles in M-agent architecture. 
5. Social profile 
The social profile forms the class of the agent’s activity, 
which as its goal has the observation of other agents in the 
society and of other elements of the environment. Those 
observations should be done in order to distinguish 
individuals, which do not fulfill social and ethical rules and 
whose behavior is unfavorable, incorrect or bad according 
to the observer. The „bad” individuals should be ade-
Social Ethic Behavior Simulation Project - Krzysztof Cetnarowicz, Gabriel Rojek, Jan Werszowiec Płazowski, Marek Suwara 
 
 
 89
quately treated (e.g. convicted, avoided) which should be 
performed by the social profile. 
6. Ethical profile 
The ethical profile is the class of agent activity, which as its 
goal has the fulfillment of one’s ethical rules and updating 
or learning the ethical rules on the basis of the environ-
ment observation, particularly of those environment ele-
ments which are agents.  
The operator of agent’s ethical learning enables to 
change the ethical norms in order to be „better” treated in 
the society. 
7. What can be simulated? 
Let us first sketch the general scheme of relations between 
the agent’s profiles [see Figure 2]  
 
Here: 
The input is firstly dispersed into ethical, rational (intellec-
tual) and social streams. 
Ethical, rational (intellectual) and social profiles could be 
interrelated. 
The output is a decision based upon a function of ethical, 
rational and social worldviews. 
Figure 2. General scheme of relations between agent’s 
profiles 
 
The above scheme must be filled with certain realistic 
assumptions on various ethical models present in cultural 
tradition: 
7.1 Ethics of moral law 
 
Ethics of moral law is externally given and implemented in 
the E profile by the programmer and unmodifiable during 
the evolution. This would correspond to the ethics of 
natural law. The feedbacks go only from the ethical profile. 
Let us notice that it allows for simulating the behavior 
according to various sets of natural laws posing the 
programmer in God’s place. 
7.2 Ethics of prize and punishment  
 
Feedbacks here go bilaterally. They let the agent to modify 
its ethical worldview according to benefits achieved. 
Possibility of interaction between the social and ethical 
profiles is noteworthy here. This is, however restricted to 
the individual fitness of an agent. 
7.3 “Cynics” ethics 
 
The ethical profile is subdued to other profiles, which is 
realized by implementing the null starting profile. Ethical 
Social Ethic Behavior Simulation Project - Krzysztof Cetnarowicz, Gabriel Rojek, Jan Werszowiec Płazowski, Marek Suwara 
 
 
 90
rules are constructed upon the changeable information 
coming from social and rational profile 
7.4 Moral duty ethics 
 
The feedback from the social profile dominates over the 
one from the ethical profile. The social rules form the 
shape of the ethical picture of the world, which is inde-
pendent from rational evaluation 
7.5 Null ethics 
 
No ethical profile is implemented or allowed in future. 
It is possible to perform simulation of a single model or 
combine different models in a single simulation, which 
allows to compare the influence of several or even all 
profiles on fitness, which gives a competitive situation.  
8. What can we learn from such simulations 
It is obvious that one should not expect learning anything 
about actually existing societies[8]. The purity and control-
lable characteristics of the simulation allows, however, 
investigating: 
the impact of ethics on fitness of social groups, 
the differences between the fitness of different models of 
ethics 
the time dependent development of ethics in its social 
aspect 
Concluding one can have the first “empirical” means to 
study social states in their theoretically (philosophically) 
constructed forms.  
References 
Moore G. E. Principia Ethica Prometheus, 1988. 
Płazowski J. W., Suwara M. Measuring the Uncertain...”, Proceed-
ings of 25th Wittgenstein Symposium, Kirchberg 2002. 
Weiß G. Ecai-96 workshop on learning in distributed artificial intel-
ligence. Call for Papers, 1996. 
Tuomela, R., 1996, ‘Philosophy and Distributed Artificial Intel-
ligence: The Case of Joint Intention and Joint Action’, in Jennings, 
N. and O'Hare, G. (eds.), Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intel-
ligence, Wiley, New York, pp. 487-503.  
Cetnarowicz K. M-agent architecture based method of develop-
ment of multiagent systems. Proc. of the 8th Join EPS-APS Inter-
national Conference on Physics Computing, ACC Cyfronet, Kraków 
1996. 
Cetnarowicz K., Nawarecki E., Żabińska M. M-agent architecture 
and its application to the agent oriented technology. Proc. of the 
DAIMAS’97. International workshop: Distributed Artificial Intelli-
gence and Multi-Agent Systems, St. Petersburg, Russia 1997. 
Singer P. Przewodnik po etyce, Wydawnictwo „Książka i Wiedza”, 
Warszawa 1998, 2002. 
Płazowski J.W., Suwara M. Modelowanie Metafizyki Prace V 
Krajowej Konferencji “Modelowanie Cybernetyczne Systemów 
Biologicznych” Kraków 2000. 


Social Ethic Behavior Simulation Project

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Name not available

Elektronisch archivierte Theorie - Sammelpunkt