From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!decwrl!infopiz!lupine!uupsi!psinntp!norton!brian Tue May 12 15:49:42 EDT 1992
Article 5484 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!decwrl!infopiz!lupine!uupsi!psinntp!norton!brian
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: re re ai failures
Message-ID: <1992May07.005643.5539@norton.com>
>From: brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder)
Date: 7 May 92 00:56:43 GMT
References: <zlsiida.144@fs1.mcc.ac.uk>
Organization: Symantec / Peter Norton
Lines: 92

In comp.ai.philosophy article <zlsiida.144@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> you wrote:
> In article <1992May1.193141.24350@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
 
>  Do you sometimes slap them
>                   ----------
> >dead just because they're annoying -- say, mosquitos? 
>  ----
> Only if they actually attack

Gimme a break...are you saying that you wouldn't smack a mosquito until after it 
starts to suck your blood?  As far as I am concerned any mosquito in the same 
county as me is engaged in "attack".
 
> Do you buy silly
> >little trinkets from foreign countries where working conditions contribute
> >to the early death of the workers? 
>               -------------------
> No

Ah yes, it is much better to refuse to buy products from such people.  Better 
they should starve to death than work in a small business making trinkets without 
perfect sanitation.  Clearly the people working in such places seem to think they 
are better off being there than anywhere else...why second-guess them?
 
> Do you ever buyre than happy to pay extra or accept the 
> occasional bug in my flowers.

What makes you think that any sensible greenhouse owner would waste the spray on 
employees?  I thought it was PLANTS that were supposed to be the target for 
spraying?

On a more serious note, it is a widely believed myth today that all pesticides 
are hazardous to human life, even in large doses.
e the dolphins" stuff is just crazy.  I try to buy 
the stuff marked "extra dolphin" when I can find it (which these days is all too 
rarely).
 
> >fly in planes, which kill millions of birds annually?
>                       ----------------------
> I suppose it could be millions, lots of planes about.  Only flown twice, and
> one of those was a 4 seater where I'd have noticed a bird strike.
 
> >Do you feel silly about being so self-righteous yet?

> No because I don't think it was self-righteousness
> And in any case, as I said, a lot of nonsense gets talked about when it is
> or isn't OK to kill.  Regardless of moral or ethical codes or laws I think
> you'll find history shows that killing happens whenever it's expedient.

Oh come on, there have been many cases when people have gone to great lengths to 
kill people (and animals) for very non-expedient reasons.  How would you classify 
animal sacrifices?  Human sacrifices?  Genocide?  The preparation of animal 
delicacies?  Are these "expedient"?  Or do you just mean "purposeful"?

> 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.).  

I would have no problem "killing members of my own species" if they were 
threatening me.  I would also havehave "given up" trying to tell us what to think, and they just 
say "Go figure out how to keep us alive.".

As I see it, the reason we should not murder (as opposed to 'kill') humans is 
because it violates rational self-interest.  If I kill someone (or try) I am 
engaging in very dangerous behavior.  I would be a lot better off cooperating 
with others than killing them for no good reason.

> The AI failure isn't the same
> species as us, which is enough to ease most people's conscience.  

Who cares what the species is?  If another species had evolved on earth with 
equivalent mental capacities, but descended from birds rather than apes, would it 
be wrong to murder them (assuming that weblem as long as we all agree that it is.

I very much disagree!  There are a host of objectively bad consequences that 
would come form people ignoring moral prohibitions against murder.  For one, you 
would not personally be safe from being murdered yourself.  Second, you would 
have to waste a lot of time preparing to defend yourself.  Third, being a threat 
to your neighbors makes them much less likely to cooperate with you on any 
projects you might consider worthwhile (eg. agriculture, education, mating, you 
name it).  Even if people thought that murder was perfectly morally acceptable, 
they would still suffer the real consequences of living like that.  This is the 
same thing as the holy rollers who play with snakes and think that it's morally 
great, when in fact they do get bitten and do die.  Beliefs cannot change the 
facts.


-- 
-- Brian K. Yoder (brian@norton.com) - Maier's Law:                          --
-- Peter Norton Computing Group      - If the facts do not fit the theory,   --
-- Symantec Corporation              - they must be disposed of.             --
-- NeXT Mail Accepted (preferred!)   -                                       --


