hypothetical ethical situation

Ratburntro44 · 2016-08-16 19:57:15

this is some of the worst ethical reasoning i have seen in quite some time

shadowda wrote:

but so be it. their lives mean nothing in this world beyond a science experiment.

What exactly makes this so? How are you defining the meaning of their lives?
If I were to produce a thousand embryos via in vitro fertilization, implant them in artificial wombs, have the children raised by robots, and then eventually use them for the experiments (without them having any contact with the outside world), would you consider that unethical? Just like the simulated humans, they don't have a direct connection to the outside world, and their lives were created for the purpose of the experiments. Why does existing outside of a virtual reality make it different? If you think it doesn't, and that this is also ethical then that opens a whole different can, though I hope quite much that I don't have to delve into.

if they were in this world, sure it would be unethical. but these are simulations. i could wipe them off the face of the earth with a click.

Do you have any compelling reason for why this should matter? How is your ability to destroy them relevant? If they were simulations on an extremely secure computer (both in software and hardware), and you had no control except to decide whether to run the experiments (so you have no ability to destroy them), then would that change the ethicality? I see no way in which that makes sense, and you provide no reasoning for why any of this is relevant.

it may seem unethical, to do such a thing to a conscious being. but in the end, it does not matter, because in this question i know for a fact they are simulated.

You still have yet to present any reason why them being in a simulation makes it not matter.

i know 100% they are mine.

Why should control over someone's fate affect the ethicality of doing something to them? In the same manner, if a slaveowner had total control over his slaves, would it be ethical to do whatever he wants with them, since he knows 100% that they are 'his'?

Heck, if i could,i would cause all sorts of problems to see what would happen. then simply change tabs to an identical world where i did nothing of the sort. the possibilities are endless.

This part isn't really any sort of argument about ethics, though it is pretty awful that you would be okay with doing this just off of your own insensible view of ethics.

if it were us. and some higher being were to do it to us. to him it would be ethical

You present no reason to believe that ethics works in such a way. Even if we do accept divine command theory, it still presents no reason to consider this ethical, since it hinges on divine control over what is ethical, not that it is ethical because of the divine having power of us.

and to us it would suck, but that would be life. i would cry and complain. but those tears are mealiness i have no control over this higher power.

What exactly does your lack of ability to change it have to do with the ethicality?

just look at Christianity. people worship this god as an ultimate good. a god that would torture you if it suited him. *cough* Job *cough*. a god that tortures you forever anyway if you don't think like him.

There are multiple things wrong with this. For one, divine command theory, if accepted, entails that God has control over what is ethical because of his omnipotence- not that what he does is ethical solely out of having control over us. Moreover, the presence of people believing in an ethical system in which a divine being may do things that seem bad to us is not proof that your idea of ethics is correct. Finally, it in no way justifies your views, since you don't give any reason as to why this would actually make the actions ethical.

Overall your assertion makes very little sense, and your argument for it even less. You present a pretty awful idea of ethics, and should probably reconsider your ideas of what is right, as they seem to have little basis in anything.

Bobithan

shadowda · 2016-08-17 15:20:15

Different55 wrote:

shadowda wrote:
Different55 wrote:
shadowda wrote:
depends. if this is a simulation, totally virtual. then yes. it would be ethical by my standards. despite these hypothetical AI being perfect replications of human existence, they are not real people. of course if these AI existed in replicate bodies as well, it would be slightly less ethical but still ok.
Plus i think it would be awesome, in one tab, the AI. in another tab you can see all its vital sighs. even virtual brain activity.
These are perfectly simulated people though. Their virtual reality perfectly mirrors how the real world works. We're not simulating people, we're simulating a universe identical to ours that has people in it that work the same way we do. Why do their feelings matter less than yours just because you have complete power over them? Would you consider it ethical if some being with absolute power over this universe started torturing you because it exists outside of your reality the same way you exist outside of your simulation's reality? Just because you can easily control them doesn't automatically mean they're not conscious people. And are you saying that you wouldn't even bother rewinding them afterwards? That you'd just destroy them and leave them miserable for the rest of their lives? That it's just okay to do whatever you want to them just because you're bigger than them? They still have real thoughts and feelings, just like you do. Just because those thoughts and feelings are contained in a place that you control doesn't mean you can ruin their lives.
but so be it. their lives mean nothing in this world beyond a science experiment. if they were in this world, sure it would be unethical. but these are simulations. i could wipe them off the face of the earth with a click. it may seem unethical, to do such a thing to a conscious being. but in the end, it does not matter, because in this question i know for a fact they are simulated. i know 100% they are mine. Heck, if i could,i would cause all sorts of problems to see what would happen. then simply change tabs to an identical world where i did nothing of the sort. the possibilities are endless.
if it were us. and some higher being were to do it to us. to him it would be ethical and to us it would suck, but that would be life. i would cry and complain. but those tears are mealiness i have no control over this higher power. just look at Christianity. people worship this god as an ultimate good. a god that would torture you if it suited him. *cough* Job *cough*. a god that tortures you forever anyway if you don't think like him.
▼Hidden text
Man i sound cruel and heartless in this post. i would make a terrible god. or a great one...
Alright so what you're essentially saying boils down to "I'm bigger than you so I can do what I want"? You accept that they're conscious people but you're doing it anyway and saying "screw you, deal with it." What's the difference between that and me tying you down and torturing you in the real world? You can't react or fight back. I know 100% that you're mine and you're not going anywhere. Both you and the virtual people are conscious beings, so what makes you so special? Apparently it's not just the fact that the virtual people are virtual because apparently if some god felt like torturing you that'd be totally ethical. So if being virtual alone doesn't make it ethical it seems like you're saying "If I'm bigger and stronger, everything I do is ethical."

no. it does not boil down to "I'm bigger than you so I can do what I want". it boils down to they are not real and o kn ow this 100%. they exist only in this virtual world.

i exist in the same world as you, that is what makes me special. if you were to torture me in this world it would be very different, because i am a human being.

anyway. the issue is that i don't see these virtual people as people because in my eyes they are nothing more that a complex program. their lives are meaningless in this world. its no different than me killing an NPC in a game.

"If I'm bigger and stronger, everything I do is ethical." we are not talking about a human torturing a human. we are talking about a "god". human on human is terribly unethical. but god on human is another thing all together.

shadowda · 2016-08-17 15:35:39

Ratburntro44 wrote:

If I were to produce a thousand embryos via in vitro fertilization, implant them in artificial wombs, have the children raised by robots, and then eventually use them for the experiments (without them having any contact with the outside world), would you consider that unethical?
Just like the simulated humans, they don't have a direct connection to the outside world, and their lives were created for the purpose of the experiments. Why does existing outside of a virtual reality make it different? If you think it doesn't, and that this is also ethical then that opens a whole different can, though I hope quite much that I don't have to delve into.
yes. that is very unethical? because they are humans. they are real people in the real world.
Do you have any compelling reason for why this should matter? How is your ability to destroy them relevant? If they were simulations on an extremely secure computer (both in software and hardware), and you had no control except to decide whether to run the experiments (so you have no ability to destroy them), then would that change the ethicality? I see no way in which that makes sense, and you provide no reasoning for why any of this is relevant.
if im just the guy who give the go ahead. hmm. that doesn't really change how ethical it is.
You still have yet to present any reason why them being in a simulation makes it not matter.
i dont see them as people. to me they are not real. if they were real it would be unethical.
Why should control over someone's fate affect the ethicality of doing something to them? In the same manner, if a slaveowner had total control over his slaves, would it be ethical to do whatever he wants with them, since he knows 100% that they are 'his'?
i mean that "100%" in the sense i own their entire world. it was my impression that in the context of the hypothetical question i had complete control over the virtual world.
i dont see them as people. but the difference between me and a slave owner is that theses "people" are not real
You present no reason to believe that ethics works in such a way. Even if we do accept divine command theory, it still presents no reason to consider this ethical, since it hinges on divine control over what is ethical, not that it is ethical because of the divine having power of us.
im just saying there is a large group of people who worship a god saying he is all good.
What exactly does your lack of ability to change it have to do with the ethicality?
nothing at all.
There are multiple things wrong with this. For one, divine command theory, if accepted, entails that God has control over what is ethical because of his omnipotence- not that what he does is ethical solely out of having control over us. Moreover, the presence of people believing in an ethical system in which a divine being may do things that seem bad to us is not proof that your idea of ethics is correct. Finally, it in no way justifies your views, since you don't give any reason as to why this would actually make the actions ethical.
no. if accepted it entails that God has control over what is ethical because he said he had omnipotence.
Overall your assertion makes very little sense, and your argument for it even less. You present a pretty awful idea of ethics, and should probably reconsider your ideas of what is right, as they seem to have little basis in anything.

probably. but this is a debate.

Different55 · 2016-08-17 15:41:27

shadowda wrote:

Different55 wrote:
shadowda wrote:
Different55 wrote:
shadowda wrote:
depends. if this is a simulation, totally virtual. then yes. it would be ethical by my standards. despite these hypothetical AI being perfect replications of human existence, they are not real people. of course if these AI existed in replicate bodies as well, it would be slightly less ethical but still ok.
Plus i think it would be awesome, in one tab, the AI. in another tab you can see all its vital sighs. even virtual brain activity.
These are perfectly simulated people though. Their virtual reality perfectly mirrors how the real world works. We're not simulating people, we're simulating a universe identical to ours that has people in it that work the same way we do. Why do their feelings matter less than yours just because you have complete power over them? Would you consider it ethical if some being with absolute power over this universe started torturing you because it exists outside of your reality the same way you exist outside of your simulation's reality? Just because you can easily control them doesn't automatically mean they're not conscious people. And are you saying that you wouldn't even bother rewinding them afterwards? That you'd just destroy them and leave them miserable for the rest of their lives? That it's just okay to do whatever you want to them just because you're bigger than them? They still have real thoughts and feelings, just like you do. Just because those thoughts and feelings are contained in a place that you control doesn't mean you can ruin their lives.
but so be it. their lives mean nothing in this world beyond a science experiment. if they were in this world, sure it would be unethical. but these are simulations. i could wipe them off the face of the earth with a click. it may seem unethical, to do such a thing to a conscious being. but in the end, it does not matter, because in this question i know for a fact they are simulated. i know 100% they are mine. Heck, if i could,i would cause all sorts of problems to see what would happen. then simply change tabs to an identical world where i did nothing of the sort. the possibilities are endless.
if it were us. and some higher being were to do it to us. to him it would be ethical and to us it would suck, but that would be life. i would cry and complain. but those tears are mealiness i have no control over this higher power. just look at Christianity. people worship this god as an ultimate good. a god that would torture you if it suited him. *cough* Job *cough*. a god that tortures you forever anyway if you don't think like him.
▼Hidden text
Man i sound cruel and heartless in this post. i would make a terrible god. or a great one...
Alright so what you're essentially saying boils down to "I'm bigger than you so I can do what I want"? You accept that they're conscious people but you're doing it anyway and saying "screw you, deal with it." What's the difference between that and me tying you down and torturing you in the real world? You can't react or fight back. I know 100% that you're mine and you're not going anywhere. Both you and the virtual people are conscious beings, so what makes you so special? Apparently it's not just the fact that the virtual people are virtual because apparently if some god felt like torturing you that'd be totally ethical. So if being virtual alone doesn't make it ethical it seems like you're saying "If I'm bigger and stronger, everything I do is ethical."
no. it does not boil down to "I'm bigger than you so I can do what I want". it boils down to they are not real and o kn ow this 100%. they exist only in this virtual world.
i exist in the same world as you, that is what makes me special. if you were to torture me in this world it would be very different, because i am a human being.
anyway. the issue is that i don't see these virtual people as people because in my eyes they are nothing more that a complex program. their lives are meaningless in this world. its no different than me killing an NPC in a game.
"If I'm bigger and stronger, everything I do is ethical." we are not talking about a human torturing a human. we are talking about a "god". human on human is terribly unethical. but god on human is another thing all together.

They actually have feelings and thoughts and they are conscious. If that doesn't make them people to you I don't know what to tell you. Even if you don't consider them "real people" you have to acknowledge the fact that they are sentient and you're just screwing them over for fun.

And according to you, would a virtual person torturing another virtual person be ethical? Would a virtual person simulating another universe and torturing its inhabitants be ethical? If this god is real, and you are real, then both are real and it would seem like he's subject to the same rules of ethics. No artificial people here. But for some reason your god gets a free pass to torture anyone he wants, even though we're all real. That strongly suggests that he's "allowed" to do that just because he's bigger and we can't ever hit back.

Ratburntro44

Zumza · 2016-08-17 16:39:15

A computer doesn't do anything but execute. It can't think. It just follows predefined instructions. So a computer simulation is highly ethical in my vision.
At biology I cant weight the ethically of it, as I don't know under how form this would be possible. However, from a religious point of view, every creature that breaths has a unique soul. idk so making lungs and make them breath mechanically without a body is like making a soul(?). I just cant really pronounce on it. But as you clone specific organs it would be perfectly fine under my eyes. Making a clone of yourself entirely thats very strange... I believe he/she should have the same civil rights as any human would.

P.S. I first use it on that last sentence above(I believe it should have the same civil rights as any human would). The subconscious is doing a thing I guess. Spooky.

Heres a movie about this:

shadowda

Different55 · 2016-08-17 19:09:59

Computers can't think, but this is a simulation. The computer isn't thinking, the people inside the sim are. It's a hypothetical perfect representation of a universe like ours inside a computer. The computer is only implementing the laws of reality and simulating them. These people don't have some age variable or anger level that can be played around with and flicked around randomly for fun, they're made of cells and atoms and everything the exact same as us.

Ratburntro44, Bobithan

Zumza · 2016-08-17 21:21:27

simulations are made with computers which are made of inorganic elements. its nothing alive.

skullz17 · 2016-08-17 21:31:23

What would it take to be alive? A soul (consciousness)? How do you know it doesn't have a soul? Also, you wouldn't torture another human being, perhaps because they have a soul, however there is no way of knowing that they do have a soul. They could be a philosophical zombie; you can only be sure of your own consciousness.

Different55 · 2016-08-17 21:46:34

Zumza wrote:

simulations are made with computers which are made of inorganic elements. its nothing alive.

Alright but it's sentient. It has thoughts and feelings. Just because you don't consider it alive means you can do whatever you want with them.

Zumza · 2016-08-17 23:17:54

Different55 wrote:

Zumza wrote:
simulations are made with computers which are made of inorganic elements. its nothing alive.
Alright but it's sentient. It has thoughts and feelings. Just because you don't consider it alive means you can do whatever you want with them.

Firstly I believe humans will never be able to play like gods at the level you think this simulation will work(just by atom interactions). In order to make such a perfect simulation we have to answer ourself "how did this all appeared?", "how this laws came to exist?".

btw i remember about another movie

I really cant decide my stand on the problem this movie rises. A dead man conscience in a computer, its just beyond me...

Different55 · 2016-08-17 23:28:24

Zumza wrote:

Firstly I believe humans will never be able to play like gods at the level you think this simulation will work(just by atom interactions). In order to make such a perfect simulation we have to answer ourself "how did this all appeared?", "how this laws came to exist?".

Well that's why it's a hypothetical situation. If we could do that, would it be ethical or not?

hummerz5 · 2016-08-17 23:34:38

@ Zumza you're basically refusing the premise bobithan suggests if you cannot assume that in this "hypothetical ethical situation" have created an autonomous AI.

shadowda · 2016-08-18 00:19:59

Bobithan wrote:

would it be okay to perform potentially torturous experiments on the artificial intelligence?

yes. would you rather we do these experiments on humans or AI.

AI is the ethical choice.

Different55 · 2016-08-18 00:40:23

shadowda wrote:

Bobithan wrote:
would it be okay to perform potentially torturous experiments on the artificial intelligence?
yes. would you rather we do these experiments on humans or AI.
AI is the ethical choice.

It's not an either/or question, it's a yes/no. Is it ethical to torture conscious but simulated life? Like I mentioned early in the topic I think that being simulated and us having control over the simulation could possibly afford us a little room to move around as far as ethics goes since we could essentially reset the simulation to before any torturous experiments without any harm having been done to the people inside, at least from their perspective.

Slabdrill, Ratburntro44

Ratburntro44 · 2016-08-18 02:25:02

shadowda wrote:

no. it does not boil down to "I'm bigger than you so I can do what I want". it boils down to they are not real and o kn ow this 100%. they exist only in this virtual world.

What exactly qualifies them as "not real"? Within the simulation there would presumably be a certain set of bits or qubits that one could identify as belong to a particular person, or at least to the same extent that would can define a certain set of atoms as belonging to a particular human (which, although not obvious in how to define it, fairly clearly does exist under any reasonable method of defining it). From the set of bits, we can then identify a set of particles that are the computer's representation of those bits, and thus are the particles comprising the person. If there are particles that exist and induce the simulated person's existence, then the virtual beings "not being real" implies that "real"-ness isn't determined by an object being composed of particles that exist in the world. So what determines that something is "real"?

i exist in the same world as you, that is what makes me special. if you were to torture me in this world it would be very different, because i am a human being.

Why is the morality of actions contingent on which world the persons reside within? Moreover, consider the case that our world is a virtual world; if I were truly someone from the containing world, acting in this world through an avatar, would it be moral for me to kill you? From your perspective, there is no way to distinguish between this situation and the situation of an actual person from within the world killing you. In such a case, how can you be so sure that one is immoral and the other not?

anyway. the issue is that i don't see these virtual people as people because in my eyes they are nothing more that a complex program. their lives are meaningless in this world. its no different than me killing an NPC in a game.

For the most obvious point, the way you are able to view them shouldn't have any affect on the morality of actions towards them. For what reason would you consider such acts against biological humans to be immoral? Most people consider the conscious experience of the victim as the reason. To make a case that such acts against the virtual people are immoral requires either giving a compelling reason to disbelieve in their conscious experience, or to give reason not reliant on conscious experience to consider actions against biological humans immoral.

"If I'm bigger and stronger, everything I do is ethical." we are not talking about a human torturing a human. we are talking about a "god". human on human is terribly unethical. but god on human is another thing all together.

I've already gone over this point previously, but the main questions are essentially "Why are the god's actions ethical?" and "Why do humans qualify here to be gods?"

shadowda wrote:

probably. but this is a debate.

Generally in (well performed) debates one is expected to give some sort of rebuttal to points against them.

Zumza · 2016-08-18 10:27:50

hummerz5 wrote:

@ Zumza you're basically refusing the premise bobithan suggests if you cannot assume that in this "hypothetical ethical situation" have created an autonomous AI.

Perhaps.
When we will reach that level of technology our society will change too.
I would simply say that any intelligence that is aware of its own existence shouldn't be experimented on.
Tho even now we are making experiences on rats. A lot of life-saving medicines are existing today because of them. However most often they are placed in cruel experiments.
Would you rather die or let a friend, family member to die, just to save from suffering a couple of rats?
This is about the believing of superiority over other species.
Hitler thought that germans are superior over any other nations. The result was a world wide war...
Black people were considered inferior until 19th century. (someone who still have this opinion is almost becoming the next US president...)
Wouldn't this simulated people believe that their superior to us? They could simulate years in seconds... It won't take much to outsmart us.
Perhaps we shouldn't try to do that in the first place... Perhaps we shouldn't wish longer for wars... All human great inventions had been used for wars... Governments used Alfred Nobel research to create bombs, Einstein's research to build bombs. Most likely AI would be used for military too.
Is making other people suffer really a crucial need for us to evolve? Perhaps a utopian future civilisation just isn't possible without blood shedding...
Funny how we wish for that utopian paradise... After all "the end justifies the means"... After all is better to ignore morality in the name of evolution?

sthegreat · 2016-08-19 02:44:10

While I am still on the fence for this issue at the moment, I have a question for those of you who think it would be unethical. What is the fundamental difference between a computer simulation and doing it on paper with an army of a million scientists with ti-84s and a RNG tool from google? If there is no difference, than would it be unethical to calculate such a thing? The only difference is that a simulation could do it and display images of it in real time.

Different55, Swarth100

N1KF · 2016-08-19 02:55:39

sthegreat wrote:

The only difference is that a simulation could do it and display images of it in real time.

Another reason is because people like to give attachment to unreal things. Even if robots became widespread but were unable to "feel", people might empathize and try to bring robots onto a nearly human level.

hummerz5 · 2016-08-19 03:02:47

But guyyyys aren't we still assuming that the "simulation" is still AI? Even if it's hard to think it even possible, if there /was/ an autonomous entity, would that stack up to a human's intellectual rights? You guys are writing this off as not possible/just a simulation when (IMO) the question assumed the opposite.

Bobithan · 2016-08-22 18:53:05

Zumza wrote:

Wouldn't this simulated people believe that their superior to us? They could simulate years in seconds... It won't take much to outsmart us.

Well, no. We have control over the time that goes by in this simulated universe. Pausing, rewinding, fast-forwarding, and the conscious entities that exist within would not know any better. If time simply stopped at any moment, would any of us know? No. Neither would these simulations, as they experience time at the same rate regardless of the speed of the simulation in our universe. What is a moment to them could be a minute to us in study, and vice versa.

sthegreat wrote:

While I am still on the fence for this issue at the moment, I have a question for those of you who think it would be unethical. What is the fundamental difference between a computer simulation and doing it on paper with an army of a million scientists with ti-84s and a RNG tool from google? If there is no difference, than would it be unethical to calculate such a thing? The only difference is that a simulation could do it and display images of it in real time.

I love this question, because it brings to mind one of my favorite xkcd comics: https://xkcd.com/505/
The difference between what is displayed on a screen and what is not is superficial; the simulation exists all the same even without a display. If a calculator doesn't have a screen but has everything else, it's still doing those calculations, it's just not in a medium that's immediately apparent to our arbitrary way of viewing the world around us. The same can go for a simulation represented by pen and paper. Just because of the medium chosen doesn't mean it's any less real.

So basically, if the computer simulated human is conscious, then the paper simulated human is also. The logic still exists, just not the display.

sthegreat

Ratburntro44 · 2016-08-22 19:52:51

Bobithan wrote:

So basically, if the computer simulated human is conscious, then the paper simulated human is also. The logic still exists, just not the display.

I don't think that's wrong, but I also don't think there's enough basis to assert this as definitely true, simply because we don't have enough information available about how consciousness works.

Bobithan · 2016-08-22 20:08:49

Yeah, I guess I should have extended this to the possibility that if it doesn't exist in a computer, it doesn't exist on paper. One can't be more or less able to create consciousness than the other. I was just going on my belief that a simulated human is just as sentient as we are.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#26 2016-08-16 19:57:15

Re: hypothetical ethical situation

#27 2016-08-17 15:20:15

Re: hypothetical ethical situation

#28 2016-08-17 15:35:39

Re: hypothetical ethical situation

#29 2016-08-17 15:41:27

Re: hypothetical ethical situation

#30 2016-08-17 16:39:15, last edited by Zumza (2016-08-17 16:44:30)

Re: hypothetical ethical situation

#31 2016-08-17 19:09:59

Re: hypothetical ethical situation

#32 2016-08-17 21:21:27

Re: hypothetical ethical situation

#33 2016-08-17 21:31:23

Re: hypothetical ethical situation

#34 2016-08-17 21:46:34

Re: hypothetical ethical situation

#35 2016-08-17 23:17:54

Re: hypothetical ethical situation

#36 2016-08-17 23:28:24

Re: hypothetical ethical situation

#37 2016-08-17 23:34:38

Re: hypothetical ethical situation

#38 2016-08-18 00:19:59

Re: hypothetical ethical situation

#39 2016-08-18 00:40:23

Re: hypothetical ethical situation

#40 2016-08-18 02:25:02

Re: hypothetical ethical situation

#41 2016-08-18 10:27:50

Re: hypothetical ethical situation

#42 2016-08-19 02:44:10

Re: hypothetical ethical situation

#43 2016-08-19 02:55:39

Re: hypothetical ethical situation

#44 2016-08-19 03:02:47

Re: hypothetical ethical situation

#45 2016-08-22 18:53:05

Re: hypothetical ethical situation

#46 2016-08-22 19:52:51

Re: hypothetical ethical situation

#47 2016-08-22 20:08:49

Re: hypothetical ethical situation

Board footer