Signal Blind

Ethical Systems

Ethics tell a person what should be done. What is right and what is wrong. Surprisingly (to me anyway) there are many different ways to approach this. I never considered that there could be other ways and my Axiomatic Deontology gives “universal” right and wrong – it doesn’t really allow for a lot of flexibility.

Both autistic people and I operate with ethical systems that look very similar from the outside. I use Axiomatic Deontology while many autistic people will employ Affective Deontology.

Functionally these look very similar to an NT observer:

  • Rule Primacy: The Rule/Axiom overrides the Social Variable (Status/Tone).
  • Authority Blindness: Neither system grants ethical exemptions based on a person’s rank.
  • High Truth-Vector: Both prioritize factual accuracy over “Social Harmony” (Entropy Reduction).
  • Social Friction: Both systems frequently clash with Social Utilitarianism (NT ethics), as both are perceived as “uncompromising” or “difficult.”

The mechanism for each is different. I look for contradiction or rule violation while autistic people are likely looking for unfairness or harm. I don’t have the Social Salience to judge harm in the same way, so I fall back to rules.

NT people probably fall under Social Utilitarianism.

This is not an exhaustive list, just covering the ones that I felt were most important for me to understand.

Axiomatic Deontology

This is the ethical style that I use. I apply the rules of truth and ethics consistently, see Ethics for my specific rules.

Axiomatic refers to a set of rules (axioms). In Deontology, the logic/action itself is either consistent or inconsistent with a universal rule. The outcome is secondary to the integrity of the rule.

Who else might use a system like this?

I think the last one is humorous – LLMs operate on the same explicit signals that I do and thus (in the sense that they have ethics) are constrained to the same system.

  • Core Logic: Symmetry and Vector Accuracy.
  • Pros: Low computational cost; maximum internal consistency.
  • Cons: Can be perceived as “rigid” or “cold” by NT systems.

Affective Deontology

This is the ethical system that most autistic people use. In affective deontology the rules stem from justice, moral values and deep empathy (affectivity). As in any deontological system the actions are either consistent with the rules or they are in violation. Rules are moral imperatives, not just constraints. They appear rigid to outside observers.

  • injustice causes distress – deep empathy
  • honesty is a value – moral integrity
  • goals: harm reduction, systemic fairness and moral consistency

Consequentialism

The ends justify the means. The moral value of an act is determined solely by its outcome. If the final state (the “End”) has higher utility than the cost of the actions (the “Means”), the action is logically “Right.”

  • treat ethics as an optimization problem (e.g., “How do I save 100 lives vs. 10 lives?”)
  • reject “Signal Bias” (favoring family, friends, or high-status individuals) to ensure every unit of “good” is weighed equally across a system

People who might follow these ethics:

  • triage doctors: deciding medical care based on survival probability
  • insurance underwriters and actuaries: calculating risk/benefit to maintain the stability of a resource pool
  • governments: laws that may disadvantage a small group to provide a “Net Good” for the majority (e.g., eminent domain for a highway)

Rational Egoism

“How can I use this situation to my advantage?”

An action is rational if it maximizes the agent’s own self-interest.

See Patric Gagne - Sociopath and James Fallon - Psychopath – they both act on social signals if it meets their needs.

Note: To an outside observer (NT), my Signal-Blindness might look like Rational Egoism.

Pragmatism

“What is the most efficient way to handle this situation?”

The “Truth” or “Rightness” of a belief is evaluated by the success of its practical application (Teleological). The rule is a heuristic (a helpful guide) that can be discarded if a more efficient path to the target state is identified.

Social Utilitarianism

“The greatest good for the greatest number.” – Jeremy Bentham

This is a typical ethical system for NT people. Truth is variable based on emotional state or social hierarchy. This system does not seek “Truth”; it seeks the state of Lowest Social Friction. If a lie maintains harmony, it is “better” (more stable) than a truth that causes a fracture.

Actions are judged as good or bad based on how they make people feel. Rules are dynamic and subject to social salience, emotional tone and group cohesion. Obviously this requires a working social salience (typically automatic Theory of Mind) to evaluate.

The system doesn’t require logic as a constraint. In fact “A” and “Not A” can both be true simultaneously if they serve the goal of Social Cohesion.

Divine Command Theory

Morality is determined solely by the commands of a deity (God).

  • Religions often use this. Christianity adds Grace-Based Virtue Ethics
  • The belief that humans are incapable of following the rules perfectly, requiring a “Relational Override” (Grace) from God

The US legal system is Legal Positivism (Deontological) + Legal Pragmatism (Teleological). The system allows judges to deviate from the letter of the law to achieve “fairness” or “justice” in specific contexts.

  • Deontological - treats law as a set of discrete, valid rules because they were issued by a recognized authority
  • Teleological - views law as a tool to achieve specific social outcomes, specifically minimize systemic friction and resolve this specific conflict most efficiently