Agape and its significance

[anns82]

I am honest about it. Maybe “secretive”… but I am pretty sure that my final aim is obvious. I question the validity of “volition” in the definition of “agape”. I am saying that the “volitional” part is not important.

I find it interesting that you did not answer my question.

 

[Slowlearner]

Ok. Life - in and by itself is neither “good” nor “bad”. In a universe void of life there is no such category as “good” or “bad”. Life is defined as a self-perpetuating process, where complex stimuli evoke complex responses. There are a few features usually associated with life, we don’t need to go into that.

Now, that being said, if there is life, then for life it is good what helps it continue existence, and bad is what hinders its existence. Morality is a different question. If the universe does not contain sentient life, then there is no morality.

Is this what you were asking about?

If your definition of good is a condition necessary for life and bad is condition that threatens life, then of course for you the intent of human actors is meaningless.

 

[R_Daneel]

If that satisfies me? An ingracious way of putting it, but yes, “beneficial” is obviously better.

I have no problem with that.

Rescue guy1: How did the dolphins treat you?
Almost-drowned guy1: Oh, they were very nice, they treated me very well, very beneficially.
(These two may be robots, or at least rank anthropomorphizers. )

Rescue guy2: *What *happened?
Almost-drowned guy2: The dolphins pushed me up to the surface! It was amazing! I thought I was a goner.
RG2: That is amazing, although dolphins are known to do that kind of thing.
(These two are “normal” human beings.)

Your example #1 is just a caricature. I am concerned about how the humans respond (or would respond) to a volitional and a non-volitional helper.

And why do you bring up dolphins anyway?

To illustrate that the act of a non-volitional helper is just as useful and beneficial. Also that their help is equally appreciated. I could have brought up a rescue dog after an avalanche. The non-volitional beings are only concerned with their task, and maybe actually designed to do their task (in the case of a specialized “robot”). Their possible human (volitional) counterpart can get distracted, can choose not to do the task at hand, might even be “scared” of performing it, it is obvious that the non-volitional beings are more likely to succeed, and thus they are “better”.

 

[R_Daneel]

If your definition of good is a condition necessary for life and bad is condition that threatens life, then of course for you the intent of human actors is meaningless.

I am glad that it is clarified. I used an abbreviated defintion, of course. Good, useful, beneficial are synonyms. Whatever promotes life, or enhances its quality is “good”, the opposite is “bad”. I thought it is an obvious definiton.

 

[HelenaMT]

I keep thinking along these lines. Suppose one is struck by an avalanche, and a rescue dog finds him. Would his appreciation for the rescue be less, just because it was performed by a non-volitional (instinct driven) being? I simply cannot believe it. I try to visualize someone in a bad situation, and when someone comes to help, instead of happily accepting it, he starts to question the helper: “did you do this volitionally, or not?”.

According to your thought experiment, it’s assumed that the receiver of the good action will think it’s volitional,right? So wondering if someone would question whether or not the action was volitional seems to put us back a step in this, unless I have missed something.

Actually, using the rescue dog is a hard example to deal with, because reciprocal emotions are involved-in fact, I would say free will is not the important factor in that example-even if a dog doesn’t have a human-level of free will, they still have enough ability to choose actions and also to empathize, which would naturally make one more appreciative of their help than if it were a machine like the Jaws of Life or something.

Let me stress again: the “robot” I am talking about cannot be differentiated form a “normal” human, except for one feature: “when confronted by a moral dilemma, it will perform what we consider a moral solution, to the best of its knowledge and ability”. Apart from this feature, it has its own freedom to act. Using Asimov’s first law of robotics: “A robot cannot knowingly cause a human being harm, or through inaction knowingly allow a human being to come to harm - to the best of its abilities”. (To those who have read some, but not all of Asimov’s stories, this is not the original law. Asimov later extended it to contain the word “knowingly”.)

I think the main problem I have with this thread is that I cannot separate emotion out of any scenario discussed so far-does this “humaniform robot” you propose have the ability to empathize? Is it self aware? Is that relevant to your point at all? Because the more I think about it, the more I realize that I don’t care as much if an action is volitional, I care more that it was done with some sort of empathy. It would be the empathy that would add value possibly more than the volition.

While the sacrifice by a being with free will adds value, so too does the exchange of empathy between, say, a rescue dog and the person it saves.

Hope that’s not way off the track of what you’re addressing (but I’m still waiting for you to get me to your ultimate point, anyway)

As I was thinking more, it came to me that we are all conditioned by our early unbringing to some undefined extent. We are not “determined” by any means, but we all have a “moral compass”, and we usually do not want to go against our better instincts. I know that I am simply “unable” to accept a cashier’s error in my favor. Yes, for a split of a second, it does cross my mind to keep the money, but I find myself “unable” to do so - so strong is my preconditioning. What would be the fundamental difference between being able to contemplate and do the “right thing”, and totally missing the “temptation”?

Funny, this reminded me of the Prodigal Son parable-it seems more value was placed on the one that sinned and through suffering the consequences came to appreciate what he had lost over the one for whom doing the “right thing” came easily and naturally, who might never have come to fully appreciate his comfortable life.

I would think the more you can choose an action that seems to override both your pre-conditioning and your natural instincts, the more evidence it would be for true free will, and the more valuable the action because it was more difficult.

If someone is naturally good, that might* seem* to place his good actions in the non- volitional category, although I am not sure if this is really so. Theoretically, you *could *choose to keep the wrong change a cashier gave you , so I don’t know if it’s fair to consider it programmed.

 

[Thing]

To illustrate that the act of a non-volitional helper is just as useful and beneficial. Also that their help is equally appreciated. I could have brought up a rescue dog after an avalanche. The non-volitional beings are only concerned with their task, and maybe actually designed to do their task (in the case of a specialized “robot”). Their possible human (volitional) counterpart can get distracted, can choose not to do the task at hand, might even be “scared” of performing it, it is obvious that the non-volitional beings are more likely to succeed, and thus they are “better”.

The rescue dog is only a good solution because some human volitionally decided to train it to help humans, the dog is an extension of the human volitional helper or rescuer. If the dog was a wolf you would not expect it to help you nor would you be preparing to express your gratitude to it.
The same with the robots, they are designed to help by a free human. The gratitude a rescued person feels is not directed to the animal or the robot but to the knowledge that following the dog or robot there comes a human volitional rescuer. The dog and robot become extensions of free humans willing to help someone.

Another scenario to examine the ‘superiority’ (which is your original question) of volitional acts over programed acts, might be this;
Your 4 year old welcomes you home with a drawing in crayon which she worked hard at all day just as a gift for you.
Your 4 year olds robot meets you at the door as you enter with another crayon drawing it did for you because you programmed it to do so.

 

[R_Daneel]

According to your thought experiment, it’s assumed that the receiver of the good action will think it’s volitional,right? So wondering if someone would question whether or not the action was volitional seems to put us back a step in this, unless I have missed something.

I am not sure if we even covered this. Maybe the recipient does not even care, for all I know.

Actually, using the rescue dog is a hard example to deal with, because reciprocal emotions are involved-in fact, I would say free will is not the important factor in that example-even if a dog doesn’t have a human-level of free will, they still have enough ability to choose actions and also to empathize, which would naturally make one more appreciative of their help than if it were a machine like the Jaws of Life or something.

The dog certainly has body movements, which we associate with empathy. In the other example (the dolphin) does not have any recognizable “expression” - at least not recognizable by me. Maybe a dolphinologist would be able to detect it, I don’t know.

I think the main problem I have with this thread is that I cannot separate emotion out of any scenario discussed so far-does this “humaniform robot” you propose have the ability to empathize? Is it self aware? Is that relevant to your point at all? Because the more I think about it, the more I realize that I don’t care as much if an action is volitional, I care more that it was done with some sort of empathy. It would be the empathy that would add value possibly more than the volition.

The “robot” as we call “it” is not distinguishable from a “normal” human being, except for one feature: “while the human being helps volitionally, this being helps because it cannot act otherwise”. Outside this problem, it has emotions, freedom of action, just like anyone else. “It” may even have distinct organs, making “it” a “he” or a “she”.

Now, that being said, I recall a wonderful novel (Kazohinia - written by Szathmari Sandor - mek.oszk.hu/01400/01456/html/index.htm ) which is available on line. It is a typical Gulliver’s travel story. In the novel there is an island with extremely highly developed humans, who have absolutely no emotions at all. Yet, when a speck of dust gets into Gulliver’s eye, they rush to help him. When the help is delivered, he is left to his own devices. Worth to read it, if you are interested.

Hope that’s not way off the track of what you’re addressing (but I’m still waiting for you to get me to your ultimate point, anyway)

I am not sure if there is an ultimate point. I started to think about the so-called “free will defense”, where the volitional nature of “agape” is a central factor. And I don’t agree with it.

Funny, this reminded me of the Prodigal Son parable-it seems more value was placed on the one that sinned and through suffering the consequences came to appreciate what he had lost over the one for whom doing the “right thing” came easily and naturally, who might never have come to fully appreciate his comfortable life.

I would think the more you can choose an action that seems to override both your pre-conditioning and your natural instincts, the more evidence it would be for true free will, and the more valuable the action because it was more difficult.

Yes, typical human reaction. We usually appreciate something that was almost “lost” and then regained. The objective “value” (whatever it might be) is the same, but the subjective appreciation is different. Strangely, such evaluation also leads to “Schadenfreude” - the “happiness felt at someone else’s misfortune”. One can look at a pauper, and be happy that he is better off. Also can look at a “Bill Gates”, and moan that he is in such a “poverty”. To this I usually say, that I live my life on an “absolute” basis, and not compared to others or “might have beens”. But that may be just me.

If someone is naturally good, that might* seem* to place his good actions in the non- volitional category, although I am not sure if this is really so. Theoretically, you *could *choose to keep the wrong change a cashier gave you , so I don’t know if it’s fair to consider it programmed.

Very tricky problem indeed. And ironic, too, if we go into it. In that case, a good person can only demonstrate his “freedom”, if he commits an evil act, while a “bad” person can truly show his freedom by committing a “morally upright action”. In my opinion this kind of thinking does not lead anywhere… This whole “obession” with freedom is vastly overrated.

 

[R_Daneel]

The rescue dog is only a good solution because some human volitionally decided to train it to help humans, the dog is an extension of the human volitional helper or rescuer. If the dog was a wolf you would not expect it to help you nor would you be preparing to express your gratitude to it.
The same with the robots, they are designed to help by a free human. The gratitude a rescued person feels is not directed to the animal or the robot but to the knowledge that following the dog or robot there comes a human volitional rescuer. The dog and robot become extensions of free humans willing to help someone.

Does not apply to the other example I used - the case of the instinctive help delivered by the dolphins. Maybe you did not read the whole thread.

Another scenario to examine the ‘superiority’ (which is your original question) of volitional acts over programed acts, might be this;
Your 4 year old welcomes you home with a drawing in crayon which she worked hard at all day just as a gift for you.
Your 4 year olds robot meets you at the door as you enter with another crayon drawing it did for you because you programmed it to do so.

Also covered before. I explicitly enumerated the definition of this “robot” earlier. Maybe you missed that one, too.

 

[Thing]

Does not apply to the other example I used - the case of the instinctive help delivered by the dolphins. Maybe you did not read the whole thread.

Also covered before. I explicitly enumerated the definition of this “robot” earlier. Maybe you missed that one, too.

I don’t think dolphins instinctively help people, they can become accustomed to people like dogs or even bulls can, but naturally they can be as aggressive and attack people.

If your robot was indistinguishable from your 4 year old child you would see your robots crayon drawing gift as being superior to your 4 year old childs gift drawing?

 

[anns82]

I am honest about it. Maybe “secretive”… but I am pretty sure that my final aim is obvious. I question the validity of “volition” in the definition of “agape”. I am saying that the “volitional” part is not important.

I find it interesting that you did not answer my question because it requires you to firmly define your sense of value. Should the recipient’s sense of value be its own definition or should the recipient be expected to acknowledge that value lies beyond his/her own perspective? What you seem to dismiss value in volition/free will as “irrational,” I contend the value in inherent in its existence. The danger that may be preventing you from answering the given scenario is that you’re definition may in fact be parallel to that of Hitler’s. I know though, it’s only academic. Its just philosophy. I hope your actions would not be the same if you were to somehow hypothetically find yourself in the same situation, though I do not see why you would change your philosophy simply because you were to be in a real situation.

Then again, maybe you think Hitler was a robot. Thus he was programed, so we couldn’t really consider him to be a “bad guy,” but rather, his designer would be a “bad guy.” Unless his designer would have given him the ability to choose to either be a good or bad guy. But then again, that would change the definition of the robot you presented.

So please, tell me where I am wrong in your definition of value by applying it to this scenario:

If there is no inherent value, it all relies on the perception of the individual, then that person is given the opportunity to determine a value of a tree, dog, or another person. You could say the value of the life of that other person is based on his/her own understanding of his/her life, but a person who can not understand the value of their own life (as in a severely mentally disabled person), then what would make them more valuable then a friendly dog? What if you needed a new heart, and the mentally disabled person would be an acceptable donor. Thus, the person is seemingly more valuable to you dead than alive. The person can not present a case to defend him/her self. Why not kill him/her?

 

[o_mlly]

Does not apply to the other example I used - the case of the instinctive help delivered by the dolphins. Maybe you did not read the whole thread…
QUOTE]

Animals have free will informed by their sense experience. They do not have rational free will, that is a will informed by the intellect.

 

[R_Daneel]

I don’t think dolphins instinctively help people, they can become accustomed to people like dogs or even bulls can, but naturally they can be as aggressive and attack people.

To be precise: wild dolphins help drowning people. The drowning people exhibit the same struggling that freshly born baby-dolphins do, and they must be pushed to the air to survive. There is pure instinct working here, nothing more. A stimulus-action type of behavior. Yet, the people who are pushed up in the air are usually happy with the result, and rightfully so. Maybe they anthropomorphise the dolphins, but that is not relevant.

If your robot was indistinguishable from your 4 year old child you would see your robots crayon drawing gift as being superior to your 4 year old childs gift drawing?

You said that you read what I mean by the word “robot”. The answer is obvious then: I would appreciate both as a sign of creativity. Which one is artistically superior? That depends.

 

[R_Daneel]

Animals have free will informed by their sense experience. They do not have rational free will, that is a will informed by the intellect.

And what is the relevance of this, undoubtedly correct observation? When the dolphin pushes a drowning human to the surface, it acts instinctvely, not volitionally. Yet, the result is the same, and I doubt that any human would push away the animal, and say: “I want a lifeguard to rescue me, who would choose to do so, not blindly obey his instinct!”.

 

[R_Daneel]

I find it interesting that you did not answer my question because it requires you to firmly define your sense of value. Should the recipient’s sense of value be its own definition or should the recipient be expected to acknowledge that value lies beyond his/her own perspective? What you seem to dismiss value in volition/free will as “irrational,” I contend the value in inherent in its existence. The danger that may be preventing you from answering the given scenario is that you’re definition may in fact be parallel to that of Hitler’s. I know though, it’s only academic. Its just philosophy. I hope your actions would not be the same if you were to somehow hypothetically find yourself in the same situation, though I do not see why you would change your philosophy simply because you were to be in a real situation.

Should I invoke Godwin’s law here? (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law)

So please, tell me where I am wrong in your definition of value by applying it to this scenario:

If there is no inherent value, it all relies on the perception of the individual, then that person is given the opportunity to determine a value of a tree, dog, or another person. You could say the value of the life of that other person is based on his/her own understanding of his/her life, but a person who can not understand the value of their own life (as in a severely mentally disabled person), then what would make them more valuable then a friendly dog? What if you needed a new heart, and the mentally disabled person would be an acceptable donor. Thus, the person is seemingly more valuable to you dead than alive. The person can not present a case to defend him/her self. Why not kill him/her?

Your number one error is the assumption that there is something called “abstract value”, devoid of circumstances. There is no such thing. The “value” of something depends on the user, the object and the desired result. It is inherently subjective. There is some “aim” that someone wants to achieve, and there is a “means” to achieve it.

The second error is that you assume that I am willing to look at other humans as “tools”. I have no idea where this assumption of yours is coming from. As a matter of fact, in many threads I asserted that humans should never be used as “tools” even if some “greater good” could be the result of such action. I am not going deeper into this part, because it is irrelevant, and because it would derail the thread.

 

[anns82]

Should I invoke Godwin’s law here? (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law)

That is actually pretty funny. I agree that people are often too quick to jump on the Nazi accusation, but I made the comparison because of the very specific situation that I questioned you with. Considering Hitler did not have a problem with using people who were “less valuable” in his eyes for medical experiments, it is a very specific correlation, rather than a random accusation.

“The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses.”

My argument is relevant, but the fact that “Godwin’s law” exists is funny. I would hate for you to hide behind it in a philosophical discussion. Do you really think it is superior to consider the philosophy of fictional robots rather than the reality of historical figures?

Your number one error is the assumption that there is something called “abstract value”, devoid of circumstances. There is no such thing. The “value” of something depends on the user, the object and the desired result. It is inherently subjective. There is some “aim” that someone wants to achieve, and there is a “means” to achieve it.

Correct me if I am misinterpreting you, but what I call “inherent value” you call “abstract value,” which I am presenting as the flaw to your argument. You label the importance placed on volition as irrational, while I (as well as others in the forum) contend that it is a distinguishing aspect of human nature, and through the value inherent to human life, it is also deemed valuable. So as long as you continue to deny any sense of inherent value, you will not be able to understand the value of volition.

The second error is that you assume that I am willing to look at other humans as “tools”. I have no idea where this assumption of yours is coming from. As a matter of fact, in many threads I asserted that humans should never be used as “tools” even if some “greater good” could be the result of such action. I am not going deeper into this part, because it is irrelevant, and because it would derail the thread.

I make this “assumption” because I have yet to see you recognize humans as being different from tools to the person who is making the value judgment. In fact, your whole premise of these situations is comparing humans to tools (robots). If the outcome is the same, then what is the difference to the person who is making the value judgment? I am happy to see that you recognize that humans should not be used as tools, but I take it you do not see a problem with using tools as humans? You say it will derail the thread, but it is really getting to the heart of the matter.

 

[R_Daneel]

Do you really think it is superior to consider the philosophy of fictional robots rather than the reality of historical figures?

Since we are talking about a hypothetical scenario, yes.

Correct me if I am misinterpreting you, but what I call “inherent value” you call “abstract value,” which I am presenting as the flaw to your argument. You label the importance placed on volition as irrational, while I (as well as others in the forum) contend that it is a distinguishing aspect of human nature, and through the value inherent to human life, it is also deemed valuable. So as long as you continue to deny any sense of inherent value, you will not be able to understand the value of volition.

Hmmm, so I am “unable” to understand the “value” of volition? No, I have yet to see an argument to support this postion. All I have seen is the assertion, without any rational argument to support it. And a general disregard to the actual examples I brought up - to wit: the fact that humans do not arbitrarily push away the help coming from non-volitional beings. I see no answer to these examples. Why?

I make this “assumption” because I have yet to see you recognize humans as being different from tools to the person who is making the value judgment.

A simple value judgment does not mean anything more than what it is. And for the umpteenth time, we talk about “entities” who are indistinguishable from humans except for one charateristics, namely: “in a moral dilemma they do not contemplate, but act in a moral fashion”. They cannot be told apart from exceptionally good humans, who do the right thing - either “instinctively” or “after deliberation”. And one more time, the difference between and “instinctively” good behavior and “deliberately” good behavior is not important - in my eyes. If your assessment is different, then bring up argument to support it.

In fact, your whole premise of these situations is comparing humans to tools (robots). If the outcome is the same, then what is the difference to the person who is making the value judgment? I am happy to see that you recognize that humans should not be used as tools, but I take it you do not see a problem with using tools as humans?

Not “using”, rather “appreciating”.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Perhaps I missed some stipulation in the beginning, but this “thought experiment” seems to ignore the purpose of agape (or caritas, or sacrificial love):

1. God told us to do it, and it is both meritorious and dutiful for us to obey His commandments.
2. Doing good deeds at personal cost is sacrificial. Sacrifice is done to worship God, to be offered in union with Christ’s suffering as oblations or for intentions.
3. Doing good out of a desire to do good increases the number of people doing so. This is how we combat evil: by loving our enemies, praying for those who persecute us, looking after the least of His brothers.

This is, of course, assuming the most significant usage of the word “good”, which is “morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious” (according to dictionary.com) and not the more superficial usages.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Betterave]

The “robot” as we call “it” is not distinguishable from a “normal” human being, except for one feature: “while the human being helps volitionally, this being helps because it cannot act otherwise”. Outside this problem, it has emotions, freedom of action, just like anyone else. “It” may even have distinct organs, making “it” a “he” or a “she”.

So apparently you are defining volitional with “could act otherwise” as a necessary condition. This is a mistake. A volitional act need only arise from the will (voluntas); it need not express a choice between two options (arbitrium). (I think this missed distinction is a major source of your confusion in this thread.)

Yes, typical human reaction. We usually appreciate something that was almost “lost” and then regained. The objective “value” (whatever it might be) is the same, but the subjective appreciation is different. Strangely, such evaluation also leads to “Schadenfreude” - the “happiness felt at someone else’s misfortune”. One can look at a pauper, and be happy that he is better off. Also can look at a “Bill Gates”, and moan that he is in such a “poverty”. To this I usually say, that I live my life on an “absolute” basis, and not compared to others or “might have beens”. But that may be just me.

…or that might be just you deceiving yourself.

Very tricky problem indeed. And ironic, too, if we go into it. In that case, a good person can only demonstrate his “freedom”, if he commits an evil act, while a “bad” person can truly show his freedom by committing a “morally upright action”. In my opinion this kind of thinking does not lead anywhere… This whole “obession” with freedom is vastly overrated.

…especially when it is misunderstood, as in your case.

Your number one error is the assumption that there is something called “abstract value”, devoid of circumstances. There is no such thing. The “value” of something depends on the user, the object and the desired result. It is inherently subjective. There is some “aim” that someone wants to achieve, and there is a “means” to achieve it.

This is very awkward and unsatisfying. Of course value is inherently subjective, as in value inherently (objectively) is related to subjects. But while there is a dependence relation of some kind, you can hardly pretend that you have said anything interesting or informative about it here in this dismissal of your interlocutors so-called “error.” The question is: what are the concrete conditions for valuing that give content to the dependence relation to which you so vaguely point?

 

[anns82]

Hmmm, so I am “unable” to understand the “value” of volition? No, I have yet to see an argument to support this postion. All I have seen is the assertion, without any rational argument to support it. And a general disregard to the actual examples I brought up - to wit: the fact that humans do not arbitrarily push away the help coming from non-volitional beings. I see no answer to these examples. Why?

You are unable to see the value because to you, inherent value does not exist and the value of volition/free will is inherent to it’s existence.

You did not receive a specific answer because it is pretty obvious. People value their own lives, and yes, is something helps preserve their life, they do in fact appreciate it. At the same time, a person who risks his/her own life to save another would be more appreciated than if the risk was not as prevalent (lifeguard who swims into the ocean to save a person is at more risk than the dolphin) , and rightfully so. It is that whole “yes” to one thing (I want to help you survive)," as well as “no” (concern for self-preservation) that makes the rescue more meaningful. Animals act through a combination of instinct and training - but just how we do not hold an animal accountable for “bad” actions (we attribute it to instinct or training), we do not hold it’s “good” actions in the same vein as a person a person who acts through free will. Unless you want to place a dog who mauled a person to death because it was trained for dog fights in prison for a couple of years, then release it again into the community, I think we would agree that animal “judgment” is different from human judgment.
R Daneel;6654305:

A simple value judgment does not mean anything more than what it is. And for the umpteenth time, we talk about “entities” who are indistinguishable from humans except for one charateristics, namely: “in a moral dilemma they do not contemplate, but act in a moral fashion”. They cannot be told apart from exceptionally good humans, who do the right thing - either “instinctively” or “after deliberation”.

Okay, I think we adequately addressed the fact that we do not agree on our definition of value. And you seem to think that superficial qualities are grounds for evaluating two “entities” with intrinsically different natures. Another reason why their actions are valued differently is because of the dishonest presentation of the action. If a person were to be very kind to you and say they loved you (or “agaped you” if you want), then you found out that it was not true, your feeling towards the person would change because the person lied to you. Likewise, if you found out it was a robot, and thus did not posses the free will to love you by the fact of the definition of agape, then your feelings would still change. It is a misrepresentation of the situation in both cases. The difference is you do not hold the robot accountable for its actions because it is programed to do so. But if you think it is okay to misrepresent the truth, then I guess you would be fine with everyone lying to you as long as you “perceived” yourself to be living in a happy wonderland.

And one more time, the difference between and “instinctively” good behavior and “deliberately” good behavior is not important - in my eyes. If your assessment is different, then bring up argument to support it.
Okay, ‘and one more time’ for myself as well: “instinct” is simply saying “yes” to natural programing, “deliberate action” is saying “yes” to one thing, as well as “no” to something else. It is the choice that is involved that makes the difference. The choice is inherently more meaningful because of all the other options that the person could have acted upon. Robots do not have this choice, they only act based on their programs, thus there is no meaning behind their actions beyond their program.

Not “using”, rather “appreciating”.

So you do not mind “appreciating” a tool as a human? Are you fine with “appreciating” a person as a tool?

 

[Betterave]

I have no problem with that.

Your example #1 is just a caricature. I am concerned about how the humans respond (or would respond) to a volitional and a non-volitional helper.

To illustrate that the act of a non-volitional helper is just as useful and beneficial. Also that their help is equally appreciated. I could have brought up a rescue dog after an avalanche. The non-volitional beings are only concerned with their task, and maybe actually designed to do their task (in the case of a specialized “robot”). Their possible human (volitional) counterpart can get distracted, can choose not to do the task at hand, might even be “scared” of performing it, it is obvious that the non-volitional beings are more likely to succeed, and thus they are “better”.

With comments like these I’m half inclined to think you are a robot!

But seriously, you see caricatures and semantic games where in fact you simply don’t understand the point being made. Now obviously you don’t respond in the same way to a human rescuer and to a dolphin rescuer. You should thank the volitional rescuer for one thing, maybe even offer to buy her a coffee; you might say thank you to a robot too, if that was the (name removed by moderator)ut needed to keep it functioning properly, but that would not at all be the same thing. Do you not see that? It’s hard not to wonder if perhaps you don’t have any meaningful personal relationships and that’s why you don’t understand their value.