I guess this goes here under "Religion & Philosophy Studies"
I guess this goes here under "Religion & Philosophy Studies"
The moral dilemma here is: Under what circumstances is killing another human morally correct? Is there anyone here prepared to take the position that the SAS sniper was morally wrong in his actions? Not me.
Who would like to step up and argue the opposing point of view?
Or even probe the limits of what is justifiable homicide? And the "elephant in the room" question: "Can an AI commit a justifiable homicide?"
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08/10/report-british-sniper-saves-boy-father-from-islamic-state-beheading-with-half-mile-shot/
The moral dilemma here is: Under what circumstances is killing another human morally correct? Is there anyone here prepared to take the position that the SAS sniper was morally wrong in his actions? Not me.
Who would like to step up and argue the opposing point of view?
Or even probe the limits of what is justifiable homicide? And the "elephant in the room" question: "Can an AI commit a justifiable homicide?"
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08/10/report-british-sniper-saves-boy-father-from-islamic-state-beheading-with-half-mile-shot/
You'll have to be more specific with regard to AI. The cases do not naturally commute.
ReplyDeleteSociety has grappled with this question for a long time. Proportionality and Defense of Self or Others generally come into play. Speaking strictly in contextless hypotheticals I'd say it's certainly feasible that a Machine Intelligence could be the perpetrator or the victim of a justifiable homicide if it is afforded moral agency to begin with.
ReplyDeleteTyphoon Jim let's just substitute an autonomous humanoid robot for the human SAS sniper. Is it a morally equivalent situation?
ReplyDeleteYou'll have to tell me in which army Edward Faulle was enlisted when that train hit him.
ReplyDeleteFurther complicated by the laws and customs of war. Don't forget that part. Technically, I think using a .50 caliber weapon against personnel is a Geneva violation, but I am not interested in pursuing that line of investigation. ;)
ReplyDeleteJason Robertson after do some research. there is no clear rules in Geneva convention. .50 caliber can be used as anti personnel weapons. Since .50 cal is a anti-material weapon. So it may cause unnecessary suffering for the enemy. So it may violate Geneva convention. It's a gray area. Since its a shot in the head that I assume. Not much suffering that I assume. It's a gray area of Geneva convention.
ReplyDeleteAs Benjamin Franklin pointed out; man is a rationalizing animal. Therefore one can argue "justification" quite widely. However, Hollywood had presented us with quite a number of horror stories of AIs that were not restricted by Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, while taking a another human life may be considered immoral in any circumstance by some; is letting another hell bent on destroying segments of the population to continue to do so any less immoral?
Sometimes peace at all cost means the peace of death.