51–60 of 67 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's wrong with them being arbitrary?
In what way are arbitrary values meaningful ?
You seem to have a really big chicken-and-egg problem here... you want morality to be universal. The problem is, "ethics", "morality", and "values" are all human constructs. We created them, we define them, we discuss them ad nauseum. They are as varied as we are. I don't think that makes them "meaningless".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what way are arbitrary values meaningful ?
Define "meaningful". You seem to have a really big chicken-and-egg problem here... you want morality to be universal. The problem is, "ethics", "morality", and "values" are all human constructs. We created them, we define them, we discuss them ad nauseum. They are as varied as we are. I don't think that makes them "meaningless".
You say in different words that things are meaningful only because we believe they are. That’s fine if it helps you but it’s also circular and rather solipsistic. Your stance is also literally nihilistic: “a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truth”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not aware of any logical argument from a point of atheism that assigns actual value to anything. If the entirety of existence is pointless, then there is no logical argument for human life being more valuable than a robot because both have zero intrinsic value. Given that, fighting the natural anthropic tendency seems pointless.
Atheism isn't nihilism. Values are subjective. Morality is relative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> WHY is a human life more valuable than a robotic one? This "but why humans" reaction is bizarre to me every time I encounter it. We care about humans because we are humans. There's nothing deeper to uncover. We care about ourselves. Humans do not care about the value of a robot "life", because we generally feel it has none.
I don't think this is quite right. Suppose someone says "I care about white people because I am a white person" (and doesn't care at all about black people) or says "I care about women because I am a woman" (and doesn't care at all about men) or says "I care about psychologists because I am psychologist" (and doesn't care at all about people in any other line of work). Would any of those seem obviously reasonable? Th…
The question for robots is whether we’ll ever identify with them strongly. I’m doubtful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seconded. Somehow, the fact that the Three Laws are broken and Asimov's works are all about showing how and why they're broken is something that most people missed. The popular culture ran off with the Laws, forgetting the context.
I think most people haven't read Asimov. They only know the laws because of their hype, but don't know their origin or meaning. Thus, we need more Asimov in TV.
(Hm, apparently BBC had made adaptations of The Caves of Steel and The Naked Sun in the sixties... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Daneel_Olivaw#Appearances_i...)
I think Asimov knew all this – his stories are about how the laws can be twisted into having surprising consequences. It's meant as a Sci-Fi version of the "literal genie" [0]. Has anyone actually taken them as a serious suggestion in AI ethics? [0] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LiteralGenie
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Atheism isn't nihilism. Values are subjective. Morality is relative.
Moral relativism is nihilism.
I am a relativist, but not a nihilist.
[1]http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195147790.001...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Define "meaningful". You seem to have a really big chicken-and-egg problem here... you want morality to be universal. The problem is, "ethics", "morality", and "values" are all human constructs. We created them, we define them, we discuss them ad nauseum. They are as varied as we are. I don't think that makes them "meaningless".
I don’t have a chicken and egg problem. The chicken and egg problem arises from an attempt to pull meaning out of an arbitrary universe. You say in different words that things are meaningful only because we believe they are. That’s fine if it helps you but it’s also circular and rather solipsistic. Your stance is also literally nihilistic: “a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moral relativism is nihilism.
"Nihilism is the view that there are no moral facts, that nothing is right or wrong, or morally good or bad. Relativism is the view that moral statements are true or false only relative to some standard or other, that things are right or wrong relative to Catholic morality, say, and different things are right or wrong relative to Confucian morality, but nothing is right or wrong simpliciter."[1] I am a relativist, bu…
It’s not coincidental that these are discussed side by side in your book, nor that some other definitions explicitly call moral relativism nihilism.
I think Asimov knew all this – his stories are about how the laws can be twisted into having surprising consequences. It's meant as a Sci-Fi version of the "literal genie" [0]. Has anyone actually taken them as a serious suggestion in AI ethics? [0] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LiteralGenie
Pretty sure he still does.