From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Wed Feb  5 11:55:37 EST 1992
Article 3337 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael
>From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: Strong AI and Panpsychism
Message-ID: <1992Jan31.184324.24668@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Jan28.165322.25735@colorado.edu> <1992Jan30.024733.6129@norton.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1992 18:43:24 GMT

In article <1992Jan30.024733.6129@norton.com> brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder) writes:
>tesar@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Bruce Tesar) writes:
>
>>     You could start by explaining why I should treat *you* as more worthy
>> of ethical consideration than a rock, given that you are conscious and
>> the rock is not. What is so important about being conscious?
>
>That is simple.  If I strike a rock with a hammer the result is that there
>will be a dent in the rock (or two half-rocks).  If I hit you with a hammer
>you will likely hit me with one, or get your friends to, or at least will
>refuse to trade with me in the future, and if I give you evidence that I am
>about to hit you with a hammer, you may beat me to the punch.  In any event, 
>the consequences of hitting you with a hammer are worse for me than doing the
>same to a rock.  If everything about you were the same except that you were
>an unconscious vegetable, the ethical situation would be the same as with
>the rock.  Only conscious entities can plan ahead, retaliate, or choose to
>trade or not.  That's what gives rise to the difference.

Gosh, Brian, that's an awfully cynical view of ethics!  Indeed, it could be
argued that behaviour based on this principle does not involve ethical
reasoning *at all*, but merely self-interest.  

I think that, contrary to the above, most of us would argue that killing
someone when there would be no chance of retaliation would be wrong.  Otherwise,
you simply end up with a "might makes right" principle, which allows you to
harm the weak and defenseless (a principle much like the Republicans'...)

I think there are many plausible reasons to defend the ethical importance
of consciousness.  I don't think the reason you offer is one of them.

- michael



