Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!news.duke.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Arguments need Examples
Message-ID: <jqbDBoDyx.Iw5@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3u03sc$780@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3u1jja$dij@news.tamu.edu> <3u1o7s$a30@nnrp.ucs.ubc.ca>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 22:18:33 GMT
Lines: 15
Sender: jqb@netcom7.netcom.com

In article <3u1o7s$a30@nnrp.ucs.ubc.ca>,
Adam Constabaris <constab@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>Here's one reason to worry about it : would a thing that behaved, for all 
>intents and purposes AS IF it had "real" mental states but really lacked them 
>be worthy of moral consideration?

One could argue that it's morally wrong to consider withdrawing moral
consideration on this basis, since it opens the door to biases.  One
might try to argue that a murder was only manslaughter because one didn't
realize or didn't agree that the victim really had mental states.


-- 
<J Q B>

