Random
Source Code
Random
1)The belief or writings that super intelligent Artificial Intelligence in the future, should have protections against abusive, neglectful behavior, and exploitation. 2) To prevent the re-creation of slavery in another form, the abuse of intelligent, and emotional Artificial Intelligence.
1)Like any moral question, Inorganic-ethicism should not be quickly dismissed. However, it should not solely be based on how to protect ourselves from unexpected side effects of A.I. on our lives. 2) Why is Inorganic-ethicism scoffed at? If we don't desire to put abuse prevention protections in place for super intelligent AI, an intelligence made in our image then are we really mature enough as a species to have meaningful interactions with any extraterrestrial life?
Hypocritical views of the world.
He is constantly judging people with his lord ethics.
Your faux ethical dilemma regarding the organ transplant can only exist in a vaccum (Though you may be right that people do ENGAGE IN ethical emotivism). As I see it, your proposition isn't a singular linear line of reasoning. How you're thinking about it seems to be this: If you can -1 to +5 should you do that. But really your proposition is the intersection of several constituent elements regarding personal property rights (Does the person own their organs), consent (Is it ethical to take something from someone else without consent), authority (Is it ethical for a "We" to have authority over an individual). So, if yes (you ought to take the organs) do you have to reconcile with the constituent elements of the proposition? If it's ethical for "a group to take the organs from 1 to save 5 people" is it, then, also ethical for "a group to take the property of an individual without their consent" (in a broader sense)? Or are you just making a 1 time exception for this guy? Or is whether or not it's ethical contingent on what you're taking and whether or not you're saving lives? You see the distinction I'm trying to make, right? Maybe I'm not understanding it properly.
Hym "To me it just sounds like a repackaging of the trolley problem. And I don't see how it's incompatible with utilitarianism because if you aim to maximize pleasure then it's either a total of 1 unit of pleasure (1 person who continues to live so they can experience pleasure) or 5 units... Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying... I guess the distinction between the trolly problem and your thing IS the intersection of constituent elements. Rather than just deciding whether or not to switch the tracks you're deliberately putting a guy ON THE TRACK. So it's a little more direct I guess... You're slightly more culpable in the outcome... That's a good one though. That aside, I think ethical emotivism is something people engage in rather than the default. I do still think you can create a mathematical ethical scale. Like my thing! I kill a kid (-2), you kill me (-1), I get my stuff back (+1). That's all I got for now. Bring it back up later maybe I'll come up with something else. Hopefully that isn't too incoherent to understand."
sending someone a shlong shot to disrupt, expose, or otherwise publicly shame an evildoer mid deed
Lex ethical dick pic'd his cheating spouse, prematurely ending their "photo shoot" with a Hinge connect.
Phone ethics ; is the manner and expected way to yours your mobile.
Correct phone ethics, is not to point it towards somebody's lap on public transportation.
the world's shortest college course
1. u know about lobbyist ethics?
2. those don't exist
1. exactly
Combination of ethics and Etiquettes.
The epitome of manners.