Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ManM · 12-17-2002, 04:56 PM

lpetrich,
So let's assume one of Asimov's robots saved your life at the expense of it's own. Would you consider that to be courageous? I sure would not. When you program out cowardice, courage loses meaning. As Lao Tzu wrote, high and low determine one another. I believe that when you program out the low, you lose the high. Virtue itself loses all meaning if you program out the possibility of vice.

lpetrich · 12-17-2002, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ManM:
<strong>lpetrich,
So let's assume one of Asimov's robots saved your life at the expense of it's own. Would you consider that to be courageous? ... </strong>

To which I say:

Who cares?

Dr. Asimov himself had faced something like that conundrum in his robot stories; in his story "Runaround", a robot's owner states

Quote:

He can't help being faithful and loving and kind. He's a machine - made so.

Kharakov · 12-17-2002, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell:
<strong>
I don't mind having 'preferences'. I would not want to live without (at least the illusion of) being able to consider and weigh all my options.
</strong>

Interesting programming you have.

Keith Russell · 12-17-2002, 08:32 PM

Kharakov:

Thanks.

I wrote it myself...

Keith.

Beoran · 12-18-2002, 12:03 AM

Keith, I hope you had some help from your parents and friends.

I must say I more or less agree with ManM here. A robot that is programmed using the laws of Asimov could not save a person when it meant killing another one. In some extreme situations, this is justified, though. Crude and broad programming is not very effective. What is wrong and right depends greatly on situation.

But, I also agre that programming in itself is nor wrong. Programmibg is a means, a method. What should be judged are both the intentions and the the effects of that programming. If both intentions and results are ethically correct, then I see no problem in going forth with a method of programming.

ManM · 12-18-2002, 09:26 AM

lpetrich,
Who cares? It seems obvious to me that there is a qualitative difference between a war hero who dies in battle and a UAV that gets shot down.

Quote:

He can't help being faithful and loving and kind. He's a machine - made so.

This is a meaningless phrase. Is the robot acting out of love? On what grounds do you call it loving?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-17-2002, 04:56 PM	#21
ManM Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: NW Florida, USA Posts: 1,279	lpetrich, So let's assume one of Asimov's robots saved your life at the expense of it's own. Would you consider that to be courageous? I sure would not. When you program out cowardice, courage loses meaning. As Lao Tzu wrote, high and low determine one another. I believe that when you program out the low, you lose the high. Virtue itself loses all meaning if you program out the possibility of vice.

12-17-2002, 08:32 PM	#24
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Kharakov: Thanks. I wrote it myself... Keith.

12-18-2002, 12:03 AM	#25
Beoran Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 75	Keith, I hope you had some help from your parents and friends. I must say I more or less agree with ManM here. A robot that is programmed using the laws of Asimov could not save a person when it meant killing another one. In some extreme situations, this is justified, though. Crude and broad programming is not very effective. What is wrong and right depends greatly on situation. But, I also agre that programming in itself is nor wrong. Programmibg is a means, a method. What should be judged are both the intentions and the the effects of that programming. If both intentions and results are ethically correct, then I see no problem in going forth with a method of programming.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.