Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Minsky's new article
Message-ID: <jqbCzH3H1.AKA@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <39f9ruINNbo1@life.ai.mit.edu> <39lf4g$9rg@coli-gate.coli.uni-sb.de> <CyyC64.M5t@world.std.com> <CzFqon.94L@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 17:05:24 GMT
Lines: 32

In article <CzFqon.94L@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <CyyC64.M5t@world.std.com> btarbox@world.std.com (Brian J Tarbox) writes:
>>|> gyro@netcom.com (Scott L. Burson):
>>|> >I think that Clarke and Kubrick in _2001_ tapped into a very
>>|> >profound truth: if a machine is placed in charge of anything,
>>|> >it will screw up.
>>|> 
>>|> Not a profound truth, but an ludicrously ignorant prejudice.
>>
>>Actually, HAL didn't screw up, he/it was lead astray by bad instructions
>>from  its _human_ creators (as described in the 2nd and 3rd books). 
>
>Ok.
>
>>HAL acted reasonably given the orders he was given.
>
>He did?  It was reasonable to kill people?

What is unreasonable about killing people, other than that it normally brings
punishment?  Do you know what "reasonable" means?  Do you understand the
is/ought dichotomy?  Even if we accept an ethical statement such as
"killing is bad" as if it were a logical axiom, we still have questions of
whether capital punishment, euthanasia, self defense, and warfare can be
"reasonable".  Is a shrill question like "It was reasonable to kill people?"
really the deepest level of thought we can operate at?




-- 
<J Q B>
