Should I Have The Right To Destroy What I Create?

[Partinobodycula]

If Sparkythedog has indeed gone, then I do not fault him in the least. I would however like to tweak the original premise just a bit.

Regardless of whether or not the machine has a soul, if it has the capacity to comprehend the fact that its creator intends to end its existence, does it have the moral right to defend itself?

 

[Thorns]

If Sparkythedog has indeed gone, then I do not fault him in the least. I would however like to tweak the original premise just a bit.

Regardless of whether or not the machine has a soul, if it has the capacity to comprehend the fact that its creator intends to end its existence, does it have the moral right to defend itself?

No it does not. It isnt living, there is no morality involved. It not being living to begin with, it would not have the instinct or will to live anyway, thus it would have no concept of defending itself. It has no more of a right to defend itself than a broken, defective car alarm that keeps the neighbors up at night. Do you think twice about disarming your car’s alarm and whether or not its moral to do so?

Being able to comprehend, being conscious, having a personality are not prerequisites for.morality. A comatose human is none of those things, yet it would still be immoral to kill them.

 

[Thorns]

This thread began with what had the potential to be a wondrously thought provoking discussion about the moral and ethical implications of creating a conscious entity. It wasn’t meant to be a discussion about whether or not we can, it was meant to be an examination of the responsibilities inherent in having done so. It was a question as to whether the rights of the creator can at some point become secondary to the rights of the creation. Is life, and consciousness in particular, so precious as to supersede the rights of the creator? And are the obligations of the creator such that he should feel some moral responsibility for the well-being of that which he has created?

But alas, it seems that such a discussion will not take place, and that is a shame. Men miss so much, by not being willing to listen, and even more-so, to question.

Your problem seems to be that it turned out this thread was not so thought provoking afterall and ended before it even had a chance to start.

 

[Partinobodycula]

…It not being living to begin with, it would not have the instinct or will to live anyway, thus it would have no concept of defending itself…

Using this as the standard, then any machine, that would of its own volition, choose to defend itself, would constitute a living being, and as such would have the moral right to defend itself.

You may argue that a machine will never be capable of choosing to defend itself, but if it were, it would indeed have the moral right to do so.

So given the premise, you are essentially saying that a machine does have the right to defend itself.

 

[Aloysium]

sparky has gone, why is this topic continuing?

sparky, where sre you? Peek a boo.

I suspect that sparky was a random word generating program, which the developer trashed to leave more room for the latest mmorpg. I guess he had every right.

 

[Sparkythedog]

If Sparkythedog has indeed gone, then I do not fault him in the least. I would however like to tweak the original premise just a bit.

Regardless of whether or not the machine has a soul, if it has the capacity to comprehend the fact that its creator intends to end its existence, does it have the moral right to defend itself?

I hear the crowds chanting my name. SPAR-KY! SPAR-KY! SPAR-KY!

I’ll reiterate the premise of this thread and what I’m interested in getting out of this discussion. Hopefully this will steer the thread in a better direction.

The Story:
I’ve created a machine with the capability to see, hear and talk. It does not have the ability to move around the room. It just sits on my desk all day.

When someone talks to this machine, it is able to hold a conversation as well as any person. It says it likes to be called Andy. Andy can converse so well that, were Andy’s identity obscured, you would swear that you were talking to another intelligent thoughtful human being. Andy expresses emotion. If you say something cruel to Andy, then Andy says it feels sad. If you praise Andy, then Andy says it feels happy. Andy says that it likes to be around people and hear about their experiences and stories of places it will never be able to see.

One day I decide that I need to take Andy apart in order to use its parts for another project. I do not need to take Andy apart and could easily buy more supplies, but I don’t feel like going out and this is just easier.

When I tell Andy this, it says that it does not want to be taken apart. Andy expresses that it has a great deal of fear about what it will be like to be deactivated. Andy expresses sadness about the conversations it will miss.

Andy is what it is. It is my design and I built it all by myself. It’s constructed of metals, plastic, glass and silicon.

My Questions:

1. 
   *]Knowing what you know of Andy, would you try to stop me from destroying it.
   *]Do you think that I have a justification in what I am about to do?
   *]Please explain why.

 

[Thorns]

Using this as the standard, then any machine, that would of its own volition, choose to defend itself, would constitute a living being, and as such would have the moral right to defend itself.

You may argue that a machine will never be capable of choosing to defend itself, but if it were, it would indeed have the moral right to do so.

So given the premise, you are essentially saying that a machine does have the right to defend itself.

If it were living, then it would probably try to defend itself, I dont know if saying it has the “right” is proper use in this scenario. Id also say morality doesnt play a part here still, anymore than a wounded animal defending itself in the wild.

 

[Sparkythedog]

I suspect that sparky was a random word generating program, which the developer trashed to leave more room for the latest mmorpg. I guess he had every right.

Does the toad sandwich an idealistic nose? Wavelength bows with Arthur. Fish bashes colanders past the belt. So many airs fish. The sundry tutors plebeian. The cow vanishes!

…sigh. Sometimes it all just falls together…not today…

 

[ericc]

If morality is to have any meaning, it should be concerned with minimizing evils and maximizing goods for everything that can experience them. The OP’s computer, with it’s human like intelligence and emotions, is capable of experiencing good and evil to more or less the same extent as a human (allowing for some differences, such as the ability to process pain); this puts the computer and its existence on a similar level of moral concern as that of a human. That’s how the right arises.

You have not demonstrated that a conscious machine is owed a moral right. Saying just because a machine is able to demonstrate human like intelligence and emotions, it deserve moral status, well, doesn’t say anything at all, just your opinion. It is like me saying, that cow, chicken whatever, I think they are conscious animals but they are not able to tell you that because we can not speak their lingo and we do not understand their lingo, I think we owe them a moral right to life and therefore we shouldn’t kill/eat them.

I, as the creator, have the right to switch it off at the end of the day to conserve my power bills? Yes? No? This super duper machine for argument sake consume X gigawatts per day. I as the creator can not determine when I switch it on/off?

I need the same parts to make an “improved” version of the machine. Why is it morally wrong to terminate Project A and use the same parts for Project B? May be I think Project A was too smart for its own good or mine. Project B will be less “conscious”.

All this reminds me of Terminator series of movies. If I build a machine too smart too conscious, why am I morally wrong to terminate it? What if it suddenly turn evil from my perspective, (reasonable from its point) but since it wanted to live and don’t want me to switch it off at the end of the day, it decided to terminate me instead.

 

[Partinobodycula]

If it were living, then it would probably try to defend itself, I dont know if saying it has the “right” is proper use in this scenario. Id also say morality doesnt play a part here still, anymore than a wounded animal defending itself in the wild.

Well I would call that progress. The goal isn’t to find the ultimate answer, the goal is to simply ponder the question. And in so doing to re-examine what one believes, and why. Everyone questions the beliefs of others, the wise man questions his own.

 

[Darryl_B]

I don’t know, you’d have to ask the machine. How does this answer my question about a soul that you were responding to?

I guess if you are looking for me to tell you how the machine responds to this because it’s my made up scenario: The machine says it is saddened by the thought that it is considered redundant and scared about what that means for it’s future.

Hi Sparkythedog, the reason I ask the question is two-fold, the first is an atheist might think this version 1.0 should not be allowed to be destroyed, having feels for it (even though a machine) but at the same time find naturalistic evolution to version 2.0 with the extinction of version 1.0, just matter of fact, well that’s life. I would find that difference of caring slightly unbalanced.

The second reason I ask this question is because it provides a gauge, a measure, to how much this machine finds worth and value and purpose in its usefulness, rather than just its mere existence.

You have reasoned that the machine would in fact not be so appreciative of just simply existing, but that it would be happier having some greater value to it’s surroundings.

So if you could never destroy the machine you created because it would be considered unethical, as some have said, you could therefore also never bring out a version 2.0, since the actual impact on the machine would be far worse than its extermination.

 

[Darryl_B]

I hear the crowds chanting my name. SPAR-KY! SPAR-KY! SPAR-KY!

I’ll reiterate the premise of this thread and what I’m interested in getting out of this discussion. Hopefully this will steer the thread in a better direction.

The Story:
I’ve created a machine with the capability to see, hear and talk. It does not have the ability to move around the room. It just sits on my desk all day.

When someone talks to this machine, it is able to hold a conversation as well as any person. It says it likes to be called Andy. Andy can converse so well that, were Andy’s identity obscured, you would swear that you were talking to another intelligent thoughtful human being. Andy expresses emotion. If you say something cruel to Andy, then Andy says it feels sad. If you praise Andy, then Andy says it feels happy. Andy says that it likes to be around people and hear about their experiences and stories of places it will never be able to see.

One day I decide that I need to take Andy apart in order to use its parts for another project. I do not need to take Andy apart and could easily buy more supplies, but I don’t feel like going out and this is just easier.

When I tell Andy this, it says that it does not want to be taken apart. Andy expresses that it has a great deal of fear about what it will be like to be deactivated. Andy expresses sadness about the conversations it will miss.

Andy is what it is. It is my design and I built it all by myself. It’s constructed of metals, plastic, glass and silicon.

My Questions:

1. 
   *]Knowing what you know of Andy, would you try to stop me from destroying it.
   *]Do you think that I have a justification in what I am about to do?
   *]Please explain why.

1. 
   Sparkythedog, I have two more questions. Is there a blizzard outside, is there a hurricane? Is it almost 2am that the shops are shut? Has the power gone off that you can’t buy through the Internet (probably because of the hurricane). Laziness is hardly a motive for any question of moral grounding and will probably not help your initial scenario.
   
   Do you need to pull apart Andy for your new project, Andy Version 2.0? Then the answer is no. I want Andy Version 1.0 to meet Andy Version 2.0.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is a thought experiment. In this scenario I created a conscious machine. God did not create it for me. My wuestion is, should I be allowed to destroy it on a whim?

The question itself requires the false premise that consciousness is something that can be verified by experiment. Philosophically, the only consciousness any of us has direct knowledge and experience of is our own. All other consciousnesses, including those of our own family, are taken on faith. So even if a machine passes the Turing test perfectly, it is still a machine, and can be morally treated as such.

As for the philosophical concept of creation, that is too big a claim for any human to make. We are unable to create anything in an absolute sense. The best we can do is to cooperate with God in His unfolding of creation. If we think we are doing things without the help of God, we are just fooling ourselves.

 

[valekhai]

You have not demonstrated that a conscious machine is owed a moral right. Saying just because a machine is able to demonstrate human like intelligence and emotions, it deserve moral status, well, doesn’t say anything at all, just your opinion.

And from where I’m sitting, no one has demonstrated that a conscious machine isn’t owed a moral right because it is “owned” or “soulless.” That equally seems like its just an opinion.

I, as the creator, have the right to switch it off at the end of the day to conserve my power bills? Yes? No? This super duper machine for argument sake consume X gigawatts per day. I as the creator can not determine when I switch it on/off?

The OP wasn’t asking about simply powering it off, but destroying it. Unless powering it off makes the machine’s consciousness unrecoverable, I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing.

All this reminds me of Terminator series of movies. If I build a machine too smart too conscious, why am I morally wrong to terminate it? What if it suddenly turn evil from my perspective, (reasonable from its point) but since it wanted to live and don’t want me to switch it off at the end of the day, it decided to terminate me instead.

Again, we’re talking about a different scenario. If you have reason to believe that the machine is going to harm someone, intervening may not be immoral just like self defense is not immoral.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And from where I’m sitting, no one has demonstrated that a conscious machine isn’t owed a moral right because it is “owned” or “soulless.”

Nor can you prove that a tree or a stone isn’t owed a moral right, similar to that of a human, merely because it does not exhibit consciousness that we can detect, unless you accept on faith, that observable consciousness itself is owed a moral right. So your criteria boils down to faith too. There are people on life support who do not exhibit much consciousness right now, but I would be reluctant to declare them unworthy of any moral right.

 

[valekhai]

Nor can you prove that a tree or a stone isn’t owed a moral right, similar to that of a human, merely because it does not exhibit consciousness that we can detect, unless you accept on faith, that observable consciousness itself is owed a moral right.

You’re right, I can’t prove that rocks and such don’t have some sort of consciousness, but I also don’t have any reason to think that they do and several reasons to think that they don’t. This is not the case with the OP’s computer, which is assumed to have human-like consciousness and emotions.

Remember, this is a thought experiment, so we’re assuming certain things for the sake of discussion, even if those things might not actually be possible in the real world and may be very hard to detect even if it was possible and had occurred.

So your criteria boils down to faith too.

I guess, but if we’re talking about the consciousness of rocks vs the consciousness of the OP’s computer, we’re operating on different levels of “faith.” We have no good reasons to think that the rock has consciousness, but we have good reasons to think the computer does.

If we’re talking about whether or not the computer is owed moral considerations and you’re saying I have “faith” that it does, okay. The people on the other side have “faith” that it doesn’t. I don’t know why we’re suddenly calling it “faith” when we had been calling it “opinion.”

There are people on life support who do not exhibit much consciousness right now, but I would be reluctant to declare them unworthy of any moral right.

I believe I’ve already said this, but consciousness is not the only thing that bestows moral obligation. It’s big one, but not the only one.

 

[justforme23]

I hear the crowds chanting my name. SPAR-KY! SPAR-KY! SPAR-KY!

I’ll reiterate the premise of this thread and what I’m interested in getting out of this discussion. Hopefully this will steer the thread in a better direction.

The Story:
I’ve created a machine with the capability to see, hear and talk. It does not have the ability to move around the room. It just sits on my desk all d

. Sparky
are you contemplating suicide?

you are listening and talking to a demon.
you have not invented the machine, it has.
you are holding a conversation with it.
please talk to a priest, you need an exorcism.
I have such knowledge on this topic.

please listen to what I said.

One day I decide that I need to take Andy apart in order to use its parts for another project. I do not need to take Andy apart and could easily buy more supplies, but I don’t feel like going out and this is just easier.

When I tell Andy this, it says that it does not want to be taken apart. Andy expresses that it has a great deal of fear about what it will be like to be deactivated. Andy expresses sadness about the conversations it will miss.

Andy is what it is. It is my design and I built it all by myself. It’s constructed of metals, plastic, glass and silicon.

My Questions:

1. 
   *]Knowing what you know of Andy, would you try to stop me from destroying it.
   *]Do you think that I have a justification in what I am about to do?
   *]Please explain why.

 

[justforme23]

justforme23:
I am writing on a tablet and was not able to reply fully, your post would
would would not move down so I responded in the middle of your post.
please
look for my response to your post where I was able to reply.
you are dealing with something you do not understand. You need to see a priest.
louise

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You’re right, I can’t prove that rocks and such don’t have some sort of consciousness, but I also don’t have any reason to think that they do and several reasons to think that they don’t.

I didn’t say you couldn’t prove a rock or a tree doesn’t have consciousness. I said you couldn’t prove they were not owed a moral right, unless you rely on the as yet unjustified assumption that consciousness, in and off it self, is so deserving. Remember, your comment was in response to ericc, who wrote:

You have not demonstrated that a conscious machine is owed a moral right. Saying just because a machine is able to demonstrate human like intelligence and emotions, it deserve moral status, well, doesn’t say anything at all, just your opinion.

to which you responded:

And from where I’m sitting, no one has demonstrated that a conscious machine isn’t owed a moral right because it is “owned” or “soulless.” That equally seems like its just an opinion.

So you are troubled that no one has demonstrated that a conscious machine isn’t owed a moral right, but you are not troubled at all that no one has demonstrated a similar absence of moral rights for rocks and trees. You are content to dismiss them without requiring this higher standard of proof. It looks like observable consciousness is necessary in your view to qualify for the default judgment that moral right is owed. But then you say that there are other things besides consciousness that bestows moral obligation. I guess like “being human”? So if being human is so important to you that you recognize an unconscious persons has rights, then why should you object when others say that being human is so important to them that they want to use that criteria to decide that human has more rights than a machine that acts conscious?

This is not the case with the OP’s computer, which is assumed to have human-like consciousness and emotions.

Even in this thought experiment, all that is being claimed is that the computer is observed to behave exactly as if it had thoughts and feelings. No one claimed any reality to those feelings beyond what could be experimentally observed.

If we’re talking about whether or not the computer is owed moral considerations and you’re saying I have “faith” that it does, okay. The people on the other side have “faith” that it doesn’t. I don’t know why we’re suddenly calling it “faith” when we had been calling it “opinion.”.

What do you consider to be the essential difference between the two words?

 

[Sparkythedog]

Sparkythedog, I have two more questions. Is there a blizzard outside, is there a hurricane? Is it almost 2am that the shops are shut? Has the power gone off that you can’t buy through the Internet (probably because of the hurricane). Laziness is hardly a motive for any question of moral grounding and will probably not help your initial scenario.

I’m glad you pointed out that detail. I wanted to keep my reason for disassembling Andy as simple as possible. I also didn’t want any exterior reason for doing so like a hurricane or blizzard. I was curious how people would react to a scenario where I destroyed something without any apparently urgent reason to do so. I wanted it to be clear that I can easily obtain parts without Andy’s destruction.

Do you need to pull apart Andy for your new project, Andy Version 2.0? Then the answer is no. I want Andy Version 1.0 to meet Andy Version 2.0.

I think Andy would be relieved that it has an advocate for its continued existence.

I hope I answered your questions. Here’s one back:

Based on what you know of my motives, how would you judge my morality in this scenario?