From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!mcsun!uknet!mucs!mccuts!fs1.mcc.ac.uk!zlsiida Tue May 12 15:49:35 EDT 1992
Article 5471 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!mcsun!uknet!mucs!mccuts!fs1.mcc.ac.uk!zlsiida
>From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: re re ai failures
Message-ID: <zlsiida.182@fs1.mcc.ac.uk>
Date: 7 May 92 14:18:29 GMT
References: <zlsiida.112@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> <1992May1.193141.24350@psych.toronto.edu> <zlsiida.144@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> <1992May6.163335.8117@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com>
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Lines: 64

In article <1992May6.163335.8117@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com> petersow@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Wayne Peterson) writes:


>Mr. Collins writes:
That's the guy who spoke the Great Quote, it's not me.



>>        Regardless of moral or ethical codes or laws I think
>>you'll find history shows that killing happens whenever it's expedient.
>>The only reason we have a problem with the 3year old is that it's the same
>>species as us, and there are very sensible reasons why we don't usually kill
>>our own species (the selfish gene et al.).  The AI failure isn't the same
>>species as us, which is enough to ease most people's conscience.  But there
>>have been many times in history when people had very little trouble with
>>their consciences while they murdered 3 year olds - Vietnam, Kuwait, etc.
>>Killing is only a problem as long as we all agree that it is.
> 

>Wow, what a statement, remind me to stay away from you.

Hey I'm making a philosophical point, not detailing how I live my life.
Did I say I personally think killing is OK?  No, I just pointed out that
whatever people say about it, they DO what's expedient.


 I guess though
>you must be prone to inaction while waiting for everyone to agree.

Well no, because we already have a usable consensus enshrined as our laws.


  Of
>course 12 people agreed that it was alright for police to beat
>Rodney King, so anything is possible. 

Exactly - I'm sure they all believe it's wrong to beat people up for no good 
reason, but they found it expedient to let the cops get away with this 
one.  That's exactly my point.


 I fail to understand YOUR view
>on ethics.  Is it exceptable to kill, when, why, who or how?

My whole point is that this is culturally determined.  Some people choose 
or ar driven to deviate from the cultural norm, and if they kill in 
situations the rest of us don't like, we jail them. If we kill in 
situations they don't like, they campaign for a change in the laws.


>[Hindu-ism stuff] 

Don't bring religion into a rational discussion
(though the hindus are less dumb than most)







+--Great Quotes of our Time---------------------------------------------+
| It is not the policy of this department to backstitch corrective code |
+----------------------------------------R J Collins, compilers, UMRCC--+


