0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
In emergency cases, where time is severely constrained, the details could be more relaxed.
What makes you think that your standards for morality are better than theirs?
there are some things you judge as immoral, yet still pass those tests.
Nothing to do with generalised "conscious agents". Morality is purely human because we have no way of knowing what any other species thinks. And I'm happy that I have shown it to give consistent results.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 01/01/2021 11:11:25there are some things you judge as immoral, yet still pass those tests.I don't recall one. Please remind me.
Circumcision is occasionally medically indicated and has preventive value. Ritual of any sort is stupid and ritual that hurts others is wrong. Oddly, ritual circumcision apparently passes both of my tests if you ask a devout Muslim or Jew, but if it's going to hurt, it should be done only under informed consent and therefore restricted to adults. Or I could argue that it fails Test 1 because you wouldn't like it if I cut off your ear to satisfy my religious convictions that you do not share. So it's wrong under the general provisions of slavery law.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 01/01/2021 11:08:22What makes you think that your standards for morality are better than theirs?Take a simple case. Imagine you are a pervert charged with deciding who can drive in your country. Because you have a penis problem, you determine that women may not drive. Now apply Test 1. If a woman said you may not drive because you don't have a vagina, would you be happy?
Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones ("argument from passion") is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.[1] This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.The appeal to emotion is only fallacious when the emotions that are elicited are irrelevant to evaluating the truth of the conclusion and serve to distract from rational consideration of relevant premises or information. For instance, if a student says "If I fail this paper I will lose my scholarship. It's not plagiarized" the emotions elicited by the first statement are not relevant to establishing whether the paper was plagiarized. On the other hand, "Look at the suffering children. We must do more for refugees." is not uncontroversially fallacious, because the suffering of the children and our emotional perception of the badness of suffering may be relevant to the conclusion. To be sure, the proper role for emotion in moral reasoning is a contested issue in ethics, but the charge of "appeal to emotion" often cannot be made without begging the question against theories of moral cognition that reserve a role for emotion in moral reasoning.Appeals to emotion are intended to draw inward feelings such as fear, pity, and joy from the recipient of the information with the end goal of convincing them that the statements being presented in the fallacious argument are true or false, resp.
Replace penis with age, and woman with kid. What would be the difference?
How do you know other humans think?
What if human colonizers of Mars evolved to adapt there so they are no longer interbreed with earthbound humans? Do they stop having morality?
It's just a matter of time until AGIs write better laws and regulations than human lawmakers.
Whether it is a Big Deal is another matter. As I argued elsewhere, morality is binary but the impact of an immoral act, and therefore the extent to which it should be punished, lies on a continuum.
It's just a matter of time until AGIs write better laws and regulations than human lawmakers. They just need the input of correct terminal goal to achieve, and they will make the most effective and efficient instrumental goals (i.e. laws and regulations) necessary to achieve that terminal goal.
That one was dealt with by Maimonides. A lie is permissible1. To save a life2. To comfort the dying3. To avert a greater wrong.I think these exceptions pass the moral tests.