Last philosophy class! Thursday, 2-4pm

[brambless.livejournal.com]

"This term we've been looking at reality and free will, testing the boundaries of each. We've tried to extend that to 'created' or 'artificial' intelligence, and I'll expect your reports on my desk at the end of class for that, along with last week's homework.

Today, we're pushing those boundaries one step further, with the work of one Peter Singer, most widely known for his philosophical work on animal rights. Now, most human civilisations have functioned on the basic premise that being human means you're better, and more worthy of life, than anything that is not. Here in Fandom, that premise falls apart - we've got a number of residents here who are not human, either extraterrestrial or supernatural in origin, and they're clearly as worthy and as good as our human residents. On a one to one basis, some of one group might fairly be judges as even more worthy than individuals of the other.

So what determines the right to free will? The right to life, and to fight for that life? Sentience is an easy answer... but how do you judge sentience? Moreover, how do you integrate the concept of evolution into that? Humans were not always foreward thinking individuals - scientists are fairly firm in their agreement that we were once apes. Does that mean that apes should be accorded the same rights and respects as human life? At what point in between them and us do those rights magically appear?

With reference to Singer's work and your own logic, I ask you to define what qualities should be possessed by a given being to award them the 'human' rights of freedom - including the right not to be executed for food."

Comments

Class Discussion

[brambless.livejournal.com]

Answer the above question.

Re: Class Discussion

[sensethevisions]

"Sentience is not an easy answer for that very reason," Phoebe says softly. "Do we have a right to decide what is sentient and what is not?"

Re: Class Discussion

[brambless.livejournal.com]

"We may not have the right," Tara replies, "but we do it, every day. To live, humans must eat. To eat requires us to take life. The only decision we can make is which lives. Do we eat animals? plants? other humans? Is it acceptable to eat a cow, but not a dolphin? Why not? On what grounds are those decisions made?

"If it's easier - and because this is philosophy, not ethics - think of this from a societal perspective, not an individual one. How does the society you come from make those choices and judgements?"

Re: Class Discussion

[dorky-broots.livejournal.com]

Broots falls asleep on top of his desk, a note saying that he's leaving on Friday clutched in his hand.


((ooc: Mun is having the day from hell, sorry.))

Homework assignments

[brambless.livejournal.com]

Hand in your reports on artificial intelligence and your philosopher-of-choice.

If you don't actually have a report (and I don't expect you to), an indication of quality on the latter is perfectly sufficient, but for the artificial intelligence one I would like some indication of content. Bullet form is fine.

Re: Homework assignments

[sensethevisions]

Phoebe hands in a five page report on Descartes and why he was sometimes misunderstood.

She also hands in a two-report on artificial intelligence.

It includes, arguments establishing what is considered AI, what rights AI would have access to, the nature of human vs. AI.

Re: Homework assignments

[dorky-broots.livejournal.com]

Broots turns in a five page typed report on Plato, mostly rambling about the cave allegory. His essay on AI is mostly on robots and The Terminator and the Matrix.