[Aimless]

I've a problem I can't seem to sort out.

It's about rights--most notably, the purported right of a conscious creature to live.

I can't figure out what lives I can--ethically!--snuff out...

Chickens, I reckon, are fine. Dogs I'm hesitant about, but if there's no pain involved, and it's for a "good cause", I'm rather okay with it.

Embryos, also okay--even more so than dogs. Likewise for a foetus, although with some hesitation.

But what about a sentient AI? What about a self-aware robot that I myself have created?

Under what circumstances would it be okay--by the ethical standards that mostly govern our modern Western societies (not just Sweden, Fuzzy)--for me to destroy such a thing, and why?

pls hlp!!

[Terez]

Bugs. I squish them all the time.

[Zanth13]

Interesting question

You can look at it as on the two extremes

A. Destroy anything that suits your needs, as long as you get away with it.

b. Perserve all life as sacred.

how about trees, many or most are older then the average Human, does that make a difference?

What about someone or something that wants to die, is it ok to assist that?

If a woman can choose to abort a baby, why cant a person choose to abort there own life?

sick animals are put out of there misery, why dont humans have the same legal option?

[Gem Windcaster]

It is our best interest to preserve life as much as possible. We'll never get space travel and space colonization if we don't.

[Zanth13]

Ok, so riddle me this

What about a terminally ill patient... no chance of survival, said person doesnt want to live through the humilation and pain of that kind of slow death, plus staying alive will just ruin the family finacially due to outragous medical bills, why is it illegal for them to be able to choose death?

[Aimless]

Zanth13;341475 said:

A. Destroy anything that suits your needs, as long as you get away with it.

b. Perserve all life as sacred.

how about trees, many or most are older then the average Human, does that make a difference?

As I see it, it's a question of what standing a creature has from an ethical PoV, which is why I spoke of sentience (as it's my opinion that a sentient creature has a much higher standing than a non-sentient one).

You however seem to equate all living things, and I'm not sure I understand why!

Quote

What about someone or something that wants to die, is it ok to assist that?

If a woman can choose to abort a baby, why cant a person choose to abort there own life?

sick animals are put out of there misery, why dont humans have the same legal option?

It's not a bad question. For me, one of the main concerns is that it is an irrevocable decision. We are not yet at a stage where we can put humans into hibernate!



Gem, you'll have to explain your claim, because I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning

[Zanth13]

So you're saying value and standard of life should be based off intelligence... that may be a valid point...

but why does intelligence = the right to live? or should I say right to exist that way not to disclude any AI....

edit: Why does simply existing not guarantee the right to live/exist?

[Gem Windcaster]

Aimless;341485 said:

Gem, you'll have to explain your claim, because I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning

Well, I figure that there will be no research and putting money into space exploration on a grand scale until humanity absolutely have to.

But meh, I skipped a couple of steps there. We still need life around here, whether we like to or not, for the sake of our own survival. If we can get the really poor countries to start producing according to their own potential, we'd probably stop all wars too. Poverty=war.

And I don't think killing someone is an option. Ever.

[Bhurnae]

"Rights" are awarded. Why has your chicken less "rights" than the dog? I'd rather go with Zanth's b
If its your robot thats messing with your head.....trash it,you are its god and dont have to explain

[Tapper]

Ethically: I'd say only your own life, since that is the sole soul actually your own.
This can be extended to your loved ones (euthanasia and abortion) if you, the subject and any other closely related parties are ok with that (personally, I am, under conditions).

Aside from that: I'd say non-sentient stuff (plants) is also ok to actively pursue the death of if your reason is good enough (food). Same for lower life forms like bacteria, bugs, germcarriers (malaria, HIV, ebola, etc.) and scavengers (what use has a rat?).
Other animals/ mammals: not actively, unless they provide you with something (meat), or the killing is unintentional (roadkill), or survival related (them or you).

To not solely discuss Sweden : in Holland, abortion and euthanasia (under strict limits and under medical surveillance) are allowed.

A right for self-euthanasia by providing a set of pills to the elderly and infirm which they can take when and where they like/ when life gets unbearable, has been proposed in 1992, by an elderly professor in ethical law, no less. 74% of the population, according to Wikipedia (out of a survey of 1000) thought this was a good plan. How many of those were in fact elderly/ infirm is unknown - might be 72% of the 74 were people hoping for a quick and dirty inheritance.

The specific mechanic was the following: you take pill A when you feel you're done with life. This starts a chemical reaction that will result in painless death if you take pill B after a few days, so you have to think about whether or not you really want to die in the intermittent time. Swallowing B directly after A wouldn't cause the desired effect. Also, if you didn't take pill B, you'll live on without any effects on your health.

[Illuyankas]

The deaths of nonsentient organisms can be directly related to two factors: How much they're bothering me at the time, and taste. If they are really aggravating me, and I can't remove them without killing them, then down comes the big hammer. Also, how delicious they are affects their average lifetime pretty damn adversely.

Also, I'm all for selfinflicted euthanasia, or with witnessed consent, and Tapper's posted method seems perfect. Choices, people should have them, unless it damages someone else more than yourself.

[Aimless]

Zanth13;341492 said:

So you're saying value and standard of life should be based off intelligence... that may be a valid point...

but why does intelligence = the right to live? or should I say right to exist that way not to disclude any AI....

Not intelligence, sentience! If it were intelligence, then I'd be opening myself up to all sorts of complicated problems wrt the mentally retarded!

Quote

edit: Why does simply existing not guarantee the right to live/exist?

Well, the thing is, we obviously have no problems with dismissing the rights of tomatoes and mosquitoes! I'm trying to figure out how that's consistent, how that works.

Gem Windcaster;341495 said:

But meh, I skipped a couple of steps there. We still need life around here, whether we like to or not, for the sake of our own survival.

Yeah, but do we need all life? Why not streamline the planet before space exploration??

Quote

And I don't think killing someone is an option. Ever.

Then the most salient question in this discussion, to you, is what a someone is. That's what I'm asking. As I see it, a someone has some ethical standing. I'm wondering what qualifies a creature for someonehood, so to speak.

Bhurnae;341496 said:

"Rights" are awarded. Why has your chicken less "rights" than the dog? I'd rather go with Zanth's b
If its your robot thats messing with your head.....trash it,you are its god and dont have to explain

Why not?

Why does my colleague have more rights than my dog? Why can't I destroy him without any explanation?

What if I'd created him? Are you saying it would be ethical of me to destroy him?

I'm reading this as a simple might makes right argument, and I'm not sure that's an ethical principle that has very much standing in our modern societies, at least not wrt the treatment of humans.

[Nequam]

To me, wether you have the right (if that is the correct word to use) to kill something depends on many things.

First off, is that something endangering your own life? If so, then I think you have all the right in the world to end it's life before it ends yours.
This can also be extended to you needing something to benefit your health, and extend you lifetime. As in killing a deer or picking some berries so you can eat.

I also think that intelligence does play a large factor in your right to kill something. Not in the sense that if something isn't as intelligent as you than it is okay, but I'd kill a tree without any qualms because I know it can't think. It has no clue what's going on, etc.
Dogs are harder to kill because they seem more intelligent, and more aware of what you are doing. We look at the dog, and it looks back at us. We have an emotional connection with the dog, because it is more like us than the tree was.

...which is what I think is the largest factor in what is okay to kill. The closer something is to a human, the more ethically wrong it feels to kill it. Excluding a "mercy" kill of course; when something or someone is suffering (and will eventually die) so we end it's suffering by taking its life. This is why intelligence really seems important. Because humans are the most intelligent animal on the planet, when something else seems very intelligent, it feels more like killing a fellow human than an animal.


Taste is a very important thing to remember though. If it's delicous then I'm usually fine with it.

[Zanth13]

Aimless;341520 said:

Not intelligence, sentience! If it were intelligence, then I'd be opening myself up to all sorts of complicated problems wrt the mentally retarded!



Well, the thing is, we obviously have no problems with dismissing the rights of tomatoes and mosquitoes! I'm trying to figure out how that's consistent, how that works.



Yeah, but do we need all life? Why not streamline the planet before space exploration??



Then the most salient question in this discussion, to you, is what a someone is. That's what I'm asking. As I see it, a someone has some ethical standing. I'm wondering what qualifies a creature for someonehood, so to speak.



Why not?

Why does my colleague have more rights than my dog? Why can't I destroy him without any explanation?

What if I'd created him? Are you saying it would be ethical of me to destroy him?

I'm reading this as a simple might makes right argument, and I'm not sure that's an ethical principle that has very much standing in our modern societies, at least not wrt the treatment of humans.

Well Im just trying to examine stuff from every point of view, to join in the discussion, even stuff I dont argee with...

Ethics is a tough area, because it changes and is all relative to the person or culture...

So is killing an aware robot wrong, I would say yes... but then again, what could you gain from killing it...because thats what would probably come down to with human ethics, at least to begin with... it would probably take a while for the opinions to shift to being fare to any existing AI...

I mean just look how long slavery was around.

[Adenosine Tri-Phosphate]

Most are social reasons.

People kill animals to consume them, or to put them out of their misery if they are a pet.
Abortions, all kinds of social reasons.

The main problem with this discussion would be the definition of 'killing', by 'killing' do you mean the total termination of one's biological processes? (or in the robot's case, mechanical processes) Since in most cases you could rebuild the robot and retain it's thoughts whereas living organisms you cannot resuscitate.

[Ace Hunter]

I agree with ATP. It all really depends on your reasons. Obviously, you'll have to kill animals and plants to absorb their energy, unless you're a vegetarian, in which you only take out the plants. But I don't see any point in randomly killing sentient lives for no reason.
ATP however, you could be wrong if you think you're putting out your pet's misery because you wouldn't know if they're still enjoying life.
Remember, only God can give and take life, unless you're an atheist, then people live and die of their own natural accord.

[relentless]

Zanth13;341484 said:

Ok, so riddle me this

What about a terminally ill patient... no chance of survival, said person doesnt want to live through the humilation and pain of that kind of slow death, plus staying alive will just ruin the family finacially due to outragous medical bills, why is it illegal for them to be able to choose death?

There's a difference between morally right and legal. In your example euthanasia may be ethically justifiable, but if you turn it into a law it will apply to everyone and you will get people who put pressure on a terminally ill patient to choose euthanasia so they won't have to take care of him/her anymore (or for some other immoral reason).

The only reason we value sentience is because we are sentient. A super intelligent (or ubersentient if you like) alien race might look at us and figure that we are just stupid vermin that's polluting and otherwise screwing up our own environment and decide to call the galactic exterminators. And I don't see on what basis we could even appeal that decision.

It's all relative. We're just lucky that we are at the top of the food chain.

[eekwibble]

I suppose, if it's ethics you're talking about, the question is; would you be killing your AI 'bot for food, self-protection, research, capital gain or that warm, fuzzy feeling experienced when your own physical power dominates other sentient lifeforms?

Has Xander/Optimus seen this thread? :xander: