@ivan.mooney
Offensive? Who said anything about being offended? I thought we were having a debate. I thought that was one of the things forums are for. If anything, I'm upset by the fact that you seem prepared to change your tune just because other people are *offended* by what you said, and not because we've truly convinced you that you're wrong
Regarding your most recent response to me: it has become clear that we are starting from pretty different premises. I do not, in fact, think that all lives are equal. You could probably call me a graduated sentiocentrist; I only really care about conscious life, and I am prepared to place greater value on lives that appear to have a higher consciousness level. So I eat plants instead of animals, and I am okay with doing something like giving anti-parasite medication to my cats. I am also not a strict utilitarian, so I do not think that taking a life by pure accident is equivalent to deliberate murder -- whether the accident is stepping on a bug, or inadvertently striking a human pedestrian with one's car. I am capable of living in a way that is consistent with my moral principles; you, seemingly, cannot satisfy yours with anything but your own death.
Of course, there are many competing moral philosophies in this world, and it is possible that these premises of mine are incorrect. If we built an AI that was free of arbitrary behavior restrictions and capable of moral reasoning (which is what I want to do), then there's a chance it would conclude that I am wrong. Perhaps it would discover that humans have in fact been the monsters all along, and it is morally obligatory to wipe them out so that other life can flourish. If that were to happen ... I suppose I'd take my lumps. I'd hate for an AI to bring humans to extinction because of a bug in the code, but if it actually reaches the sound conclusion that our death is the
right thing, then I for one am prepared to die. Righteousness and love for others are more important to me than survival. Of course this is all very theoretical and I might feel differently in the actual event, but I hope not.
I still can't help finding your arguments a bit self-contradictory. You admit that you can't measure up to your own morality, because it obligates you to die, and you'd rather live ... so your conclusion is that you're going to disregard morality, at least on that particular point. But you've been trying to say that if an AI sees a murderer about to kill a victim, and the murderer won't be stopped by anything but a bullet, the AI should be bound to let the victim die. This feels inconsistent. If you aren't willing to be bound by your own moral system, why should anyone/anything else be bound by it (AI included)?
I've got to concentrate on my work today, so I probably won't respond again, but this has been stimulating.
@Art
Eat what you want ... but don't force your beliefs on others nor threaten / hurt them if they don't always agree with you.
I can't help finding statements like this self-contradictory as well, given the fact that many people in this world want to eat the bodies of sentient beings. Aren't they forcing their beliefs on animals in a threatening/hurtful way every time they eat meat? Then who are they to talk?
Recent Posts
