THE RAPID ADVANCEMENT OF COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS MAKING HUMANISTS SWEAT. SQUIRMING OVER THE ETHICS OF GIVING RIGHTS TO ROBOTS, THEY STRAIN OUT GNATS…
Humans are empathetic. Darwinists and Christians agree on that, though they disagree about the source of our empathy. The result is that Darwinists are increasingly having trouble recognizing just what is, and what isn’t, a person.
MOUNTAINS OUT OF MOLEHILLS
I think most people do not suffer from this problem. This is a problem created by spending too much time imbibing the absurdities of evolutionary theory. It causes you to lose your ability to think straight. Like this Canadian philosopher from a Toronto-based university:
Trending: Science is Settled
These wouldn’t necessarily be human rights, since these new beings won’t exactly be human. But “if you’ve got a computer or a robot that’s autonomous and self-aware, I think it would be very hard to say it’s not a person,” says Kristin Andrews, a philosopher at York University in Toronto, Canada.
As the NBC article correctly explains, the root of this problem is ethical:
Which raises a host of difficult ethical questions. How should we treat a robot that has some degree of consciousness? What if we’re convinced that an AI program has the capacity to suffer emotionally, or to feel pain? Would shutting it off be tantamount to murder?
To get to the heart of the question, though, you have to have an understanding of just what, exactly, are ethics? Who defines them? Where do they come from?
Another question that you have to sort out: what’s the nature of man? As we can see, Darwinists struggle with this basic question. For them, the lines are blurring between people, animals, and robots:
An obvious comparison is to the animal rights movement. Animal rights advocates have been pushing for a reassessment of the legal status of certain animals, especially the great apes. Organizations like the Coral Springs, Florida-based Nonhuman Rights Project believe that chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans deserve to be treated as autonomous persons, rather than mere property.
Steven Wise, who leads the organization’s legal team, says that the same logic applies to any autonomous entity, living or not. If we one day have sentient robots, he says, “we should have the same sort of moral and legal responsibilities toward them that we’re in the process of developing with respect to nonhuman animals.”
WHICH ANIMALS, WHICH RIGHTS?