Post by Radrook Admin on Sept 21, 2019 20:09:43 GMT -5
AI and Ethical Considerations that might arise
The goal of creating machines with the identical human faculties, raises many ethical questions which, if successful will will prove a bit problematic. For example, do such androids or other machines pf a similar kind deserve the same rights as humans? If yes, why? If not, then why not. Is being synthetic, as opposed to organic, relevant to that question. If indeed it is, then why. If not, then why not?
One very important factor to consider is that we treat animals differently from humans specifically because of their inability to reason as we do. Yet a machine capable of reasoning as we do removes that excuse. If indeed an android were eventually to demand the rights as outlined in our USA Bill of Rights, what argument could we justifiably offer to legally deny it those rights?
It could argued that in terms of reasoning we are equal. That the only difference is the synthetics as opposed to the organics and that those two factors are totally irrelevant to the moral issues involved. It could logically focus on the way we treat animals as mere food simply because they don't equal us in reasoning ability. In fact, it might argue that it is superior to us in that reasoning-ability area and therefor have not as much but far more right to demand being treated on an equal basis.
In such morally problematic situation, mankind would indeed have a hard time proving logically that our creation is inferior to us and doesn't deserve to be treated with the same dignity and moral respect that we would demand any other species to treat us.
One very important factor to consider is that we treat animals differently from humans specifically because of their inability to reason as we do. Yet a machine capable of reasoning as we do removes that excuse. If indeed an android were eventually to demand the rights as outlined in our USA Bill of Rights, what argument could we justifiably offer to legally deny it those rights?
It could argued that in terms of reasoning we are equal. That the only difference is the synthetics as opposed to the organics and that those two factors are totally irrelevant to the moral issues involved. It could logically focus on the way we treat animals as mere food simply because they don't equal us in reasoning ability. In fact, it might argue that it is superior to us in that reasoning-ability area and therefor have not as much but far more right to demand being treated on an equal basis.
In such morally problematic situation, mankind would indeed have a hard time proving logically that our creation is inferior to us and doesn't deserve to be treated with the same dignity and moral respect that we would demand any other species to treat us.