From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!constellation!hardy.math.okstate.edu!gindrup Mon May 25 14:05:06 EDT 1992
Article 5621 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!constellation!hardy.math.okstate.edu!gindrup
>From: gindrup@math.okstate.edu (Eric `'d'kidd' G..)
Subject: Re: AI failures
Message-ID: <1992May13.162049.9178@math.okstate.edu>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Math Department
References: <uc2m8INNn5d@early-bird.think.com> <1992May8.155052.13848@psych.toronto.edu> <1992May11.160456.15469@math.okstate.edu> <1992May11.183017.14806@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 16:20:49 GMT
Lines: 62

In article <1992May11.183017.14806@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>
>(Here is an exercise for you, Eric.  Would it be *wrong* for me to
>kill you?  Why or why not?  Be careful how you answer - I have Mafia ties
>at your school... ;-)
>

I haven't got a clue how to answer you.  I don't see that killing is either
wrong or right.  It's just the way things are and the way things are done.
I can't say that I would be right by my own moral code to tell you whether
your actions are right or wrong.  That's something you'd have to figure out
for yourself.  In fact by my code, impressing upon you my definitions of
right and wrong would be wrong.
In a strict sense, the concepts right and wrong don't really apply, mostly
because I don't believe in the Socratic Ideals.  I don't see that there is
any way to identify without error or opinion (eechhk...) what is "right"
and what is "wrong".  These appear to be labels that are applied willy-
nilly by a large number of people I know.  They tell me "[this] is right.
[that] is wrong. . ." and the like.
With everyone else running about making their own definitions of right and
wrong how on Earth could I place myself in a position of enough authority
to tell you what is right and wrong.  Maybe I should be incensed that you
would even suggest placing that burden on me.  I certainly don't want to be
responsible for demonstrating to your satisfaction why my definitions are
the *correct* ones for all situations.
I believe that it would be wrong for me to kill me.  That sort of self-
destructive behaviour is why I adopted the "show-me" attitude towards
morality.  I don't think I would appreciate your having me killed for
several reasons.  (1) It seems like a pretty cowardly thing to do : hiring
someone else to do your killing for you.  (2) I have things to do here
that I would prefer to finish before dying.  (3) You would probably have
one of my favorite shirts damaged in the process.  (4) Your attempt would
endanger those around me for whom I accept some personal responsibility in
their protection.  (5) And, finally, because you seem to be doing this
only in an attempt to satisfy some morbid curiosity about death and dying.
(Since, I got over worrying about death and dying a while back, I don't
share your interest and am frankly a bit "put out" that you would want to
enforce your interest upon me.)
Notice that at no time did I mention that what you would be doing would be
right or wrong.  These words are reserved for those who need some more
worry and complication in their lives by disallowing themselves the right
to do what they want (i.e. the wrong things) just because of some arbitrary
designation that they or another made.
The utilitarian asks what is the value of yet another aspect of the world
and the things in it.  And he may have a point.  The dogged attempt to
classify all things (including actions and modes of thought) as right or
wrong seems to involve an extraordinarily large outlay of energy with 
little in the way of fruitful return.  What is the value of investing the
time and energy necessary to make these distinctions when all one is
expecting to do thereafter is self-enforce the actions appropriate to the
designation and worry and fret over those things which either could not
be classified or were not classified through omission.  What is the
value?
I might want to point out to you that it is, in a sense, perhaps inappro-
priate for you to expect me to subscribe to any sort of morality that is
cast from the same mold as the one you employ.  I would expect that I do
not.  Just as I cannot look at a plaintiff in a federal court and determine
guilt or innocence, I cannot consider any arbitrary action, situation, or
thing and pronounce, without error, its right- or wrong-ness.  In fact, in
most cases I employ "Hofstadter's `Mu,'" since the difference between right
and wrong seems to be so tricky in reality.
- Eric Gindrup ! gindrup@hardy.math.okstate.edu


