From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker@mercury.colossus.net)
Date: Tue Feb 23 1999 - 17:46:27 MST
> Nick Bostrom wrote:
> > I think you are confusing to issues here. (1) doing it to our
> > children; (2) doing it to each other. These cases are diffrent..
> > (1) There is nothing morally wrong in doing it to our children.
> <snip>
> > (2) Doing it to each other, on the other hand, is only allowed
> > through certain means such as persuation.
> <snip>
>
> The difference between these cases is simply one of degree. Parents can
> provide a large fraction of a child's information about the world, and have
> the opportunity to persuade the child to adopt their viewpoint before
> his/her mind develops the memetic immune system of an adult. As you point
> out, this process is both necessary and inevitable.
>
> What the FAQ appears to propose is that we hard-wire a predetermined moral
> system into these posthuman beings, and compel them to abide by it for the
> rest of eternity. There is no parallel for this in human society, because
> it is not yet possible to do such a thing.
Even the case of children is not so clear-cut. While we place a very
large amount of power in the hands of parents, we also place limits;
correctly, if you ask me. You can pollute your children's minds all you
want with nonsense, but you can't beat them, force them to work, neglect
their physical needs for food and shelter, etc. Some exceptions are
made even there for religious nuts: allowing parents to deny essential
medical care or permanently lop off perfectly healthy parts of their
genitalia for no legitimate reason (a barbarism we will outgrow
eventually, I'm sure), but there are still limits (for example, you
can only mutilate your child's genitalia in the US if it's a boy).
It is a legitimate concern what physical or "mental" limits should be
placed on sentient beings we create. It does reflect upon us how we
treat those over whom we have power.
Rights are a consequence of autonomy: we grant them to adults so that
they can exercise their autonomy as effectively as possible without
interfering with others or suffering interference from others. We grant
some limited rights to children so as to encourage their development
into fully autonomous beings. If we would think it unconscionable to
make permanent physical modifications to a child that would restrict
its future autonomy (and therefore its future rights), then we should
have the same judgment for doing it to an AI.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:07 MST