From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!src.honeywell.com!saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com!petersow Mon May 25 14:04:47 EDT 1992
Article 5585 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!src.honeywell.com!saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com!petersow
>From: petersow@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Wayne Peterson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: AI failures
Message-ID: <1992May12.160815.6496@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com>
Date: 12 May 92 16:08:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: saifr00.1992May12.160815.6496
References: <1992May11.183017.14806@psych.toronto.edu> <1992May11.210524.30977@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992May12.002440.5501@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Honeywell Air Transport Systems Division
Lines: 35

Micheal Gemar states:

>My comment above was not regarding the notions put forth regarding the
>treatment of AI's, but the treatment of *humans*.  Both Hans and Eric have
>essentially proposed abolishing ethics, not only in the realm of
>computers, but in the realm of people.  Yes, I agree that AI ethics is 
>a tricky question, but I will assert that it is at least a *question*.
>Hans thinks the whole notion is ridiculous because *ethics itself* is
>a meaningless social construct, and Eric (the poster who I was responding
>to in the posting quoted above) states fatalistically that *lots* of
>thinking things die everyday, so what's another more or less, human or
>computer.  It is this denial of ethics in the *human* realm that has
>me worried.  I sure don't want to be on a desert island with these
>guys...

  Maybe there is hope after all.  I have been thinking about this question
 of ethics.  People will seem to be on completely different sides of an ethical
 question.  Pro and anti abortionist for example.  But both groups would appose
 the killing of a 3 year old child, or a 3 second old baby.  They both are
 against the taking of human life.  The controversy stems from when they think
 human life begins.  There is a common ground, dispite differing view.  I dont
 have all the answers on what is right or what is wrong, but I think a good 
 starting ground is that each human is an end in herself.  All are equal
 in importance, and as such deserves the respect of each other.  The
 prematurity is that until we have mutual respect, we will have no regard
 for other life or intelligence.  People are not possessions, or there
 for our own self gratificiation. From a foundation of mutual respect can
 come I believe genuine love.  I think eventually love and respect could
 extend to all life for the same reason.

 With respect,
 Wayne Peterson

"Man can be measured by his capacity for love." Kabir
 


