From: Simon McClenahan (SMcClenahan@ATTBI.com)
Date: Wed Mar 06 2002 - 15:44:03 MST
From: "Dickey, Michael F" <michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com>
> From: Simon McClenahan [mailto:SMcClenahan@ATTBI.com]
> "My personal solution is anthropomorphization, i.e. all the machines have
> sentient rights. The decision to enslave an entity carries far too much
risk
> IMO, so I default to respect with reasoning."
>
> If you attatch rights to intelligent machines, would you do the same for
> intelligent non-human animals?
Absolutely. Non-human animals of course have intelligence. I assumed that
was implied with "sentient entity". If your next question is, "are you a
vegetarian or a vegan?" then sadly, my answer is no. There are lots of ways
to justify this action, but I think the core reason is that I am currently
incapacitated to change to that particular lifestyle. But I do think that
when I have acknowledged that fact with sound reasoning, I will have no
choice but to change.
Similarly for pet ownership, I respect Fido and he respects me, and we both
get happiness out of the relationship. But if he becomes rabid, or mauls a
small child because it is in his nature to do so, I would pursue corrective
healing or termination for the sake of the mutual relationship and his right
to be in that positive and constructive relationship, and not simply because
I am more intelligent and powerful than him.
A lion would probably maul and kill an unfortunate person thrown into the
lion's den, irrespective of whether the lion is happy or not, because it is
in the lion's nature to do so. The ethical model of the lion is a very
simple one, if it does indeed have an ethical model. The more intelligent
zookeeper understands this and compensates for this by providing the cage
and lion-happy things to encourage the mutual respect in the relationship.
The more intelligent humans also realize that for them to be safe in the
human-lion relationship, these constraints must be placed. If it is detected
that the lion is actually unhappy with these constraints, then we should be
morally obliged to respect the lion's right to be happy, and hence maybe
freedom.
Like I said, by default I attach rights to unintelligent entities, like
current computers, a spanner, or ants (maybe), or bacteria. I do this
because I find it easier to maintain a relationship with such entities that
ultimately benefits me. I effectively give them a truly artificial made-up
intelligence so they become sentient, instead of thinking of them as tools,
although my thinking does not change what they are. I guess one could
consider the concept of "slavery" as "tool-ifying a sentient (intelligent)
being."
cheers,
Simon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:48 MST