I think it's a good idea to get something in place before we create any sort of robotic AI but that is a long long time coming :|
[HEADING=1]WHY DID WE GIVE THEM GUNS!?[/HEADING]Quaxar said:FREE THE ROOMBA!
On an unrelated note... I wonder if she's related to former head of MI6 Darling. Probably not. I don't know why I even brought that up...
You actually really made me think with this. I came in here wanting to say it was stupid but now I am not sure I believe that. Somebody actually convinced somebody of something online. Thats crazy. Anyway I'm going to ramble for a while. What defines morality, ethics and what should give rights? Is its intelligence? If so shouldn't hunting and the entire meat industry be shut down? But I do not feel that way personally, yet I would feel appalled at someone killing a dog for no reason. Perhaps then it is the projection of myself onto a relatable object or organism as the person I quoted has said. If so then you are correct that ethics should be considered for nonliving things. But what would the repercussions be? Videogaming may become inhumane in the eyes of the law. Machinery would not be able to be used in factories, and hitting your computer when it isn't working would be considered illegal. Obviously these ideas are ridiculous. Perhaps then a set of right should be created that isn't that of a human or of a bet, but of something completely different.gritch said:Actually I would argue it's our ability to project our own feelings and emotions onto another object/animal/being that defines our entire definition of ethnics and rights. Ethnics for me have always been derived from our own personal desires. I would not like to die, therefore I consider you killing me to be bad. I am also able to project my own thoughts onto other objects, animals, or people. The logic would go: I don't like to die so I bet that guy over there wouldn't like to die either. The degree of easiness to which I can empathize with the object determines the degree of "badness".sethisjimmy said:Pets are actually alive, robots just mimic life. Just because we can get emotionally attached to something doesn't mean it's now an entity on the level of animal life.
As a human I can easily empathize with another human, therefore I consider killing another human very bad. Most humans are also able to empathize with animals of higher intelligence (dogs, cats, etc) and those that share many common features with humans (chimps, apes). Most people would consider killing these animals to be bad, at least far worse than killing animals of lesser intelligence and alien features (such as insects). Often people can form strong familial bonds with such animals (pets as they're called).
Anything that people can empathize with strongly enough with incite an ethnical response and thus deserves rights. If people can empathize with non-living robots as well as animals, those robots deserve rights on par with animals. Claiming something deserves rights only because it's alive is nothing more than a rationalization.
Geez sorry about the long post. I guess I just find this topic very interesting.
Glad I got you thinking about it. I guess some people actually DO read my posts!Winthrop said:You actually really made me think with this. I came in here wanting to say it was stupid but now I am not sure I believe that. Somebody actually convinced somebody of something online. Thats crazy. Anyway I'm going to ramble for a while. What defines morality, ethics and what should give rights? Is its intelligence? If so shouldn't hunting and the entire meat industry be shut down? But I do not feel that way personally, yet I would feel appalled at someone killing a dog for no reason. Perhaps then it is the projection of myself onto a relatable object or organism as the person I quoted has said. If so then you are correct that ethics should be considered for nonliving things. But what would the repercussions be? Videogaming may become inhumane in the eyes of the law. Machinery would not be able to be used in factories, and hitting your computer when it isn't working would be considered illegal. Obviously these ideas are ridiculous. Perhaps then a set of right should be created that isn't that of a human or of a bet, but of something completely different.