The Neuroethics of Cellular Automata

[Cognisant]

Spoiler

We're approaching that point where objectivity and empiricism supersedes ethics as we know it, if a malfunctioning animatronic pirate lopped off someone's head the idea of punishing it would seem absurd, certainly it would be taken off duty, a threat to public safety cannot be morally abided, but to punish it would be futile, it's only a machine, it can be repaired and the cause of it's malfunction dealt with so that it does not happen again.

If the pirate was an actor in costume the situation would be different, as a conscious entity there is something for us to ascribe blame to, but what is this blame if not the acknowledgement of the murderer's emphatic malfunction? Even if the actor killed the patron for no better reason than lacking a reason not to (aside from the obvious) the fact remains that this crime could, theoretically, be attributed to a particular mechanistic fault in the murderer's brain.

I suppose the real question here is: what is justice?

Is justice vengeful compensation, an eye for an eye as recompense for one's loss, or is justice a matter of education and redemption? As we're questioning the nature of ethics itself whichever choice is the moral high ground is more a matter of opinion than anything else, or to put it another way whose feelings do you sympathise with more, the victim's or the criminal's?

 

[Black Rose]

I agree although without ethics we would not know what to do given technological infancy. Reeducation camps we in the Soviet Union but should we do the same if your politically liberal or conservative or like green more than blue? Where does diversity fit in? I believe in human progress and that conflicts have been less violent given we are still creature that came from the barbarism of nature into the enlightenment. So I'm optimistic were will find humane solutions that do not degrade human or animal dignity. Factory farms must and will become a thing of the past when we are post biological.

 

[GodOfOrder]

If the murderer could indeed be fixed, the proper course would be correction of the problem.

If the murderer's fault could not be fixed, the proper course would be disposal.

Punishment of a already corrected entity would be inefficient, as would attempting to rehabilitate the unfixable problem. Both of these are pointless, and doomed to fail. Punishment is ideally educational. Detainment and execution serve a more utilitarian purpose, mitigating or eliminating a threat.

 

[Duxwing]

If the murderer could indeed be fixed, the proper course would be correction of the problem.

If the murderer's fault could not be fixed, the proper course would be disposal.

Punishment of a already corrected entity would be inefficient, as would attempting to rehabilitate the unfixable problem. Both of these are pointless, and doomed to fail. Punishment is ideally educational. Detainment and execution serve a more utilitarian purpose, mitigating or eliminating a threat.

(playing Devil's advocate)

What about deterrence? Punishing a even rehabilitable agent may instill such fear in the rest that fewer crimes are committed. E.g., if, in a society, Andrew rapes Betty, and we send Andrew to prison for a decade, then perhaps ten rapes were prevented. The question then becomes whether the reduction in crime is worth the cruelty.

@Cognisant Moreover, punishing the robot is absurd because it exists in isolation and cannot understand punishment.

-Duxwing

 

[GodOfOrder]

(playing Devil's advocate)

What about deterrence? Punishing a even rehabilitatable agent may instill such fear in the rest that fewer crimes are committed. E.g., if, in a society, Andrew rapes Betty, and we send Andrew to prison for a decade, then perhaps ten rapes were prevented. The question then becomes whether the reduction in crime is worth the cruelty.

@Cognisant Moreover, punishing the robot is absurd because it exists in isolation and cannot understand punishment.

-Duxwing

Were those ten rapes not committed because other rapists witnessed Andrew's fate or because Andrew did not have time to rape more women?

I admit that I can probably not answer your question properly, but never the less I shall try. Is the prospect of rehabilitation not as fearful a prospect as imprisonment? Personally, the thought of sitting in a cell for a few years is preferable to the thought of a cognitive rewrite. (Yes, I realize I sound like I'm from the Clockwork Orange universe.) And if the rapist can not be rehabilitated then "disposal" seems like a pretty threatening prospect.

I the end both options result in less rapists. Rehab removes rapists from the population, imprisonment separates them from the general population. The answer to the question I think requires a clear definition of what constitutes rehabilitation.

 

[Duxwing]

Were those ten rapes not committed because other rapists witnessed Andrew's fate or because Andrew did not have time to rape more women?

Both.

I admit that I can probably not answer your question properly, but never the less I shall try. Is the prospect of rehabilitation not as fearful a prospect as imprisonment? Personally, the thought of sitting in a cell for a few years is preferable to the thought of a cognitive rewrite. (Yes, I realize I sound like I'm from the Clockwork Orange universe.) And if the rapist can not be rehabilitated then "disposal" seems like a pretty threatening prospect.

I the end both options result in less rapists. Rehab removes rapists from the population, imprisonment separates them from the general population. The answer to the question I think requires a clear definition of what constitutes rehabilitation.

If the prospect of such rehabilitation were fearful, then it might not be allowed, and yikes, you're right! The disposal system provides deterrent. Consider me converted, friend.

-Duxwing

 

[GodOfOrder]

 

[Black Rose]

your reeducation will begin shortly.

 

[KuroKamiHime]

Spoiler

We're approaching that point where objectivity and empiricism supersedes ethics as we know it, if a malfunctioning animatronic pirate lopped off someone's head the idea of punishing it would seem absurd, certainly it would be taken off duty, a threat to public safety cannot be morally abided, but to punish it would be futile, it's only a machine, it can be repaired and the cause of it's malfunction dealt with so that it does not happen again.

If the pirate was an actor in costume the situation would be different, as a conscious entity there is something for us to ascribe blame to, but what is this blame if not the acknowledgement of the murderer's emphatic malfunction? Even if the actor killed the patron for no better reason than lacking a reason not to (aside from the obvious) the fact remains that this crime could, theoretically, be attributed to a particular mechanistic fault in the murderer's brain.

I suppose the real question here is: what is justice?

Is justice vengeful compensation, an eye for an eye as recompense for one's loss, or is justice a matter of education and redemption? As we're questioning the nature of ethics itself whichever choice is the moral high ground is more a matter of opinion than anything else, or to put it another way whose feelings do you sympathise with more, the victim's or the criminal's?

lol, I think justice is a subjective concept. 'An eye for an eye' is my standard to go by, but many people believe in forgiveness and punishment.( My one moral, golden rule is that people should accept the consequences for their actions; if you consciously do evil, don't go crying when evil is done to you). It depends so much on context and intent. Did they kill that person on purpose? Was it just a negligent mistake? Are they sorry? For most people, I think that subjectivity has to be taken into account, but the law(ideally) is supposed to be as objective as possible(because there are too many gray areas) so you can know the punishments in advance and weigh the consequences for your actions.
I think 'eye for eye' is a natural instinct made out of anger. Those more enlightened would probably prefer to salvage the person's soul as opposed to throwing it away.