|
| Thread: Please only Philosophers read this thread! No on else! I'm serious... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV |
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
posted May 10, 2008 08:45 PM |
|
Edited by Anakrom at 20:46, 10 May 2008.
|
Quote:
Quote:
And now imagine, that your computer is self-aware, you want to post answer to this post and computer says: "Sorry, I donīt feel like posting something on HC, letīs do it tomorrow". Why would we create such a machine? We need tools to make our work and life easier, but not slaves. In the end we would have silent and reliable things, and self-aware slaves, who would perform only possible problems and danger.
Never said that all computers will be needed to be self-aware. For that matter, I said 'machines', which includes more things than just computers.
Question is why any of those machines should be self-aware. For its whole existence, human race depends on tools, and creating machine that can refuse or even revolt seems like creating a new race and Matrix-like story, ending with a downfall of humans. I canīt see any pros of such invention, while cons could be devastating.
____________
Result matters
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 08:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But AIs do that by memorizing a huge set of instructions.
One thing is to understand what you're doing, another is to execute. Intelligence regards the former. And AIs don't exist yet, so how do you know they do that? In most SF books or movies they self-program themselves in a way 
Quote:
Question is why any of those machines should be self-aware. For its whole existence, human race depends on tools, and creating machine that can refuse or even revolt seems like creating a new race and Matrix-like story, ending with a downfall of humans. I canīt see any pros of such invention, while cons could be devastating.
Well, why do you have children? Just because the machines may or may not agree with humans does not mean they are evil. It's not like we force our children to be as we want them to be; they will have their own opinions, and I think we should be fine with that.
Some may call this a 'continuity' of our species (if that's the reason you have children, but I hope not), so the AIs would similar, but obviously not our species (so what?)
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 09:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, why do you have children?
Comparing having babies and creating a machine seems quite strange.
Quote:
Just because the machines may or may not agree with humans does not mean they are evil. It's not like we force our children to be as we want them to be; they will have their own opinions, and I think we should be fine with that.
They shouldnīt be necessarily evil - but I donīt see point in creating them, I canīt find any logical reason in it. Moreover, they could be danger for my descendants.
____________
Result matters
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 09:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Comparing having babies and creating a machine seems quite strange.
Does it? I mean, you could go on like that, saying that people shouldn't have children because they might be dangerous (i.e criminals).
Quote:
They shouldnīt be necessarily evil - but I donīt see point in creating them, I canīt find any logical reason in it.
Maybe not "logical" from a selfish perspective (selfish = caring about ourselves, not includes greed in this context!). But sometimes we have to let others be free and make up their own opinions, even if it may not be logical. For example, is it logical to make children because they might turn out criminals? Maybe we do it for love. Maybe for something else.
Quote:
Moreover, they could be danger for my descendants.
But your descendants can also be a danger for other's descendants. Or maybe to the machines. Steven Spielberg's AI (movie) marked it the other way around -- humans decimating machines, etc (not as in Matrix or Terminator).
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 09:37 PM |
|
Edited by Anakrom at 21:40, 10 May 2008.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Comparing having babies and creating a machine seems quite strange.
Does it? I mean, you could go on like that, saying that people shouldn't have children because they might be dangerous (i.e criminals).
Well, I could go like that, but it will not change anything. Maybe Iīm selfish, but I put human race before any other. If there would be decision "Which one race will perish - Humans or Polar Bears", my choice is obvious, with calm heart. Creating offspring is our nature, but creating thinking non-living person? Could they even die, or could they be just repaired? We canīt compare humans and machines - and I doubt that there will ever be machine, that will have mind, desires and feelings. All this is just plain theoretical, and Iīm sure that we both will be gone if mankind will make such a discovery.
Edit - Try to imagine what would discovery of machine with "soul" do with religion. It would deny God and cause world chaos.
Quote:
Quote:
Moreover, they could be danger for my descendants.
But your descendants can also be a danger for other's descendants. Or maybe to the machines. Steven Spielberg's AI (movie) marked it the other way around -- humans decimating machines, etc (not as in Matrix or Terminator).
But I put my decendants before any other children or things. You are maybe too much inspired by that film, noone can say if it will be ever possible to create self-aware machine and how it will look like. But each of that sci-fi film never had "Happily lived side by side" ending.
____________
Result matters
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 09:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, I could go like that, but it will not change anything. Maybe Iīm selfish, but I put human race before any other. If there would be decision "Which one race will perish - Humans or Polar Bears", my choice is obvious, with calm heart.
That is why this is subjective and actually I wonder whether the machines will 'decimate' us by themselves unprovoked by us humans (especially with your mentality, don't you think Polar Bears would get upset? then you blame them that they are cruel, etc.. when actually it is our fault).
Quote:
Creating offspring is our nature, but creating thinking non-living person? Could they even die, or could they be just repaired? We canīt compare humans and machines - and I doubt that there will ever be machine, that will have mind, desires and feelings. All this is just plain theoretical, and Iīm sure that we both will be gone if mankind will make such a discovery.
Depends on what kind of machine we're talking about. And what kind of humans are we going to be. You see, if we're going to keep on like that, and make the machines that think like us, we're most certainly going to have cruel machines, that want to decimate us simply because... we're humans. Actually that would be our mirror, since it seems we want to decimate machines simply because... they're machines. (i.e specism or whatever racism of the species). But I wonder whether they will be the ones who will start this -- because you see, humans have this tendency to discriminate others, therefore maybe we'll start the war and they will reply. This means it'll be our fault.
But maybe they won't be our mirror, but better, less selfish creatures. In this way I guess we can only hope that we take over and abuse them -- possibly corrupting them and making them reply to us. Either way, it's "we" that need to change our mentality.
A good analogy here is with aliens (see below).
Offspring is natural, in a way (well animals are natural too), but that doesn't mean it's the only right way. And neither does it come good to perish the Polar Bears more than humans without any kind of remorse.
Quote:
But I put my decendants before any other children or things.
This is why we're selfish, not for us, but for our "group" that we emphasize.
Quote:
You are maybe too much inspired by that film, noone can say if it will be ever possible to create self-aware machine and how it will look like.
Think of it like this: Let's say aliens would come down to us and would attack us.
Why do they do that, you say? Because they represent our mirror, and put their descendants above ours. Why do we expect "mercy" from them? Why, when we have to look at us first, look in the mirror, and see how much "mercy" we have for them. Why do we expect from others something that we do not share?
In this scenario, I think everyone would be much better off if the aliens would be peaceful, but that requires a sacrifice that humans need to do -- that they need to change their mentality towards less selfishness against other groups or species. In this way, we can fully expect their "mercy" since we share it as well.
Just put yourself in other's point of view and see how he feels like -- and it's hard to be so selfish once you've done that. This kind of tolerant mentality (for different groups/species) is what I think makes humankind evolve. Less and less racism, specism and for that matter any kind of "group" preference. I hope you get what I mean.
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 10:47 PM |
|
|
TheDeath, you have interesting thoughts, I would even afford to say "strange".
To join in/back: I agree with the view: "Why to create self-aware machines?" Well, yes: why?
And mvassilev touched the point: machinery do not have will. And here comes again the "yet-problem" which brings us back to the "why-problem".
[thing cut out because become un-needed]
I see you added in the meantime. Good: I need not to go on with this...
So jump onto tolerance our next step.
Strange way it is. I try to examine these with a christians eyes (trying not to put all christians to shame... it pitily have happened before, I fear  ) So I place "above all" love/charity. (another funny language thing as it is "charity" in English Bible but in Hungarian Bible it is what you translate rather to love... please read 1 Corinthians 13 if you would like to understand) I think I use charity because I'm not sure what exact meanings "love" has in native English and as "charity" is used where I cite it from;and it does have the meaning I mean...
So for me it is rather charity than tolerace. I'm not racialist (but unfortnately have some inherent prejudice <_< not indeed. I think charity is a bit "more" than tolerace. While tolerace might lets you die on your own stupidness, charity reprove and saves you (or tries so). Where tolerace is rather a "be and let be" strategy, charity is rather "live well and help living well". And now that the "good-problem" is here I shall explain that regarding to the Bible your own good is in many cases not what you think it is. (profane example: Eve and Adam thought the fruit is good for them, wrong they were -not to mention they were told it is not good for them)
So charity I would prefer over tolerace but there in not a perfect world (yet...) . And I think involving aliens is too much...
Back on self-aware things: The "machine with soul" is an odd idea. For instance, do you/we (humans in realistic general) believe in soul? If you do I appreciate though. So if we accept soul exist we can say machinery has none. I think forging self-awareness is pointless, but forging soul is indeed impossible (we not even know how self-awareness "works";what do we know about the soul?) So it is -for me- not an option.
So if your point, TheDeath [such a strange name to choose... ], was to say humans are on a wrong way with their egoism and "me-mania" I really agree. But there was some oddment for me with the "making self-awareness / having babies" paralell. I'm rather young but I know for sure (but it might change with time...) that I would like children. Why? To keep the human race, to have love-giving-machines or something else? I think I can not tell why but it do not bothers me, really. Why should I denie myself something good (generally, not only babies) if it is good for others and/or do not real harm? I believe that "Good" is working in a nice way, being good not only for the one who recieves but for the giver as well. [brackets closed] So having a baby is "motivated" by some unknown force  but I have no such drive to have a self-aware tool/slave. Don't you think THAT is what would be egoist (with all the pejorative meanings) to create sg. that might can give love or whatever but it happens to have a "turn off" switch as well? So as we concluded: release egoism and so with it comes in hand: we can get rid of the disturbing problem of enslaved machinery. I hope you can see what I mean as well
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 11:06 PM |
|
|
I get what you mean, but unfortunately its utopic. How to change metality of whole mankid? I would love to see the "Mirror World" - personally I wouldnīt harm any person or animal just for fun or pleasure, but imagine that you have to kill to survive (in wilderness for instance, hunt for food etc.) - I doubt that animal is happy to be killed, but it has to be this way if you want to live further - and choice is yours, because your are stronger one. This is all about, about ballance of power - there always be someone stronger, who will be in leading position and decide about lives of others. Bad thing is, that human race is in the leading position for such a long time and it corrupts it, because we simply have too much power in our hands. Maybe we will even have power to create machine with mind. But still, we are partly animals, and we have our instincts, like instinct to survive - like Polar Bear example (I donīt have nothing against Polar Bears, I actually like them, but it was first animal that came into my mind) - I know that is selfish to say that, but donīt you want to save your life if you can? I know its morally absolutely disgusting, but I doubt that Bear would hesitate if he was hungry. Its just part of nature - stronger defeats weaker and lives. Its not fair, its not moral, but that the way it is. Good option is to protect (or not to harm) weaker - but in position whether your or their life, which one that would be? You would choose morally bad (and live) or in self-harming way (and die), which is against nature of most beings. I know Polars Bears would get angry, but same as the Seals can get angry because they are bearīs prey. I have to say that morale and often even philosophy is absoultely unnatural - morale can be applied only on human beings. Honestly, what I would fear the most is the fact, that machines/aliens could be like humans. If they were like animals, they would take what they need, and then live in symbiosis, which is much better than human way - why do you think "Morale" was invented - to weaken the power range the people could use. We are only race that needs such thing, othewise our World would be in ruins. Can you imagine machine, with same power as human, but without morale? Fearful thought. Maybe Iīm selfish in way of preserving my life and life of those I love, but again, I find it natural (and bit animalistic, but I like it), but otherwise Iīm not racist nor animal-killing maniac. You attitude is far more moral and "good", if I use that word, but unnatural and bit suicidal.
____________
Result matters
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 11:07 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:13, 10 May 2008.
|
I like your posts Galev 
Quote:
So for me it is rather charity than tolerace. I'm not racialist (but unfortnately have some inherent prejudice <_< not indeed. I think charity is a bit "more" than tolerace. While tolerace might lets you die on your own stupidness, charity reprove and saves you (or tries so). Where tolerace is rather a "be and let be" strategy, charity is rather "live well and help living well". And now that the "good-problem" is here I shall explain that regarding to the Bible your own good is in many cases not what you think it is. (profane example: Eve and Adam thought the fruit is good for them, wrong they were -not to mention they were told it is not good for them)
Very interesting explanation about charity. I guess it's the thing I choose as well (i.e the "live well and help living well" strategy you mentioned).
Quote:
So charity I would prefer over tolerace but there in not a perfect world (yet...) . And I think involving aliens is too much...
I don't know what 'too much' means but I'll assume you did not understand (forgive my bad explanations please).
It was the point that we should be an 'example' to the aliens, i.e we should have compassion and charity, before we could expect it from them.
Quote:
Back on self-aware things: The "machine with soul" is an odd idea. For instance, do you/we (humans in realistic general) believe in soul? If you do I appreciate though. So if we accept soul exist we can say machinery has none.
Yes I believe in a soul, but I never said machines will have a 'soul'. And certainly won't be like us -- however we will still be able to choose, and treat them like snow or not (well of course when they are self-aware).
I think that how we treat others ultimately defines us. Just because they are different (e.g: no soul, but self-aware somehow) does not make them require any less tolerance, and better, charity (i.e help them, which is what I choose). Even if it is not possible to do, the 'option' and the "what would you do" questions still remain asked, and it is the answer that will yield a character in us -- either egoist or not.
Quote:
So if your point, TheDeath [such a strange name to choose... ]
Yeah, strange name I agree, too bad I can't change it, but it has a 'hidden' meaning not revealed
Quote:
...was to say humans are on a wrong way with their egoism and "me-mania" I really agree. But there was some oddment for me with the "making self-awareness / having babies" paralell.
The parallel is not to be taken 100% literary. I never said machines are the same as babies. I only said that, regardless of differences, if they are self-aware (and better, if they 'feel' certain emotions) they still deserve charity from us. That's the only parallel I made
Quote:
I'm rather young but I know for sure (but it might change with time...) that I would like children. Why? To keep the human race, to have love-giving-machines or something else?
Because you have compassion for others, and because of your love for them Because the goal for babies is not to be in control of their lives, but to let them live freely (IMO).
Quote:
but I have no such drive to have a self-aware tool/slave. Don't you think THAT is what would be egoist (with all the pejorative meanings) to create sg. that might can give love or whatever but it happens to have a "turn off" switch as well?
Of course that would be egoist, I did not intend to make self-aware machines slaves or with turn-off switches, that would be plain ... i dunno, evil.
I merely said that, if self-aware machines get built, we should treat them accordingly, not like trash/slaves.
@Anakrom:
Yes that is part of nature (and I know the polar bear was just an example). But we also have to consider that we call ourselves 'evolved' that means free from the 'bad' instincts hard-wired in us. In a situation where I had to choose between me and the bear it would truly be a hard time for me, but I think I would choose myself. Most bears have no 'resistance' to their natural instincts, so they will not hesitate to attack me if given the chance. And that is why it has to get down to a blood fight.
However, I think we should know better in certain circumstances. If it depended on us to be the ones who attacked the bear, I think we should be more 'evolved' and treat the bear better, even if he does not treat us well. Why? Because that would be the 'thing' that made us different and set us as a kind of 'example' for them.
Even if I would choose myself over the bear, that does not mean that I would have no remorse -- I pretty much knew the decision was difficult and I could do nothing (esp. because the bear had a natural urge to do it, not his will totally). This question is one amongst many philosophical situations that stun me for a moment and make me unable to give a good answer
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2008 12:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And AIs don't exist yet, so how do you know they do that?
Well, when we have actual AIs and know how to make them, we can have this discussion. Until we know how it actually works, there's not much that can be said. But current machines are definitely tools.
Regarding on the relationship of humans and human-like machines, I think that if the machines will be able to reason, we'll treat them just like other humans.
See, it is a matter of "us" and "them", but "us" isn't humans, but those who can reason and exchange stuff. This includes aliens, AIs, and anything else.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted May 11, 2008 05:53 PM |
|
Edited by Galev at 13:12, 13 May 2008.
|
Anakrom, I see -I suppose- what you mean. But I can hardly deide who you say it to. However I have an opinion which differs from yours (why can't English have different personal pronoumns for plural and singel??? I mean the plural now).
I think I won't hesitate to make decision between an animal and a human to save, more probably may only because of fright would I delay... But I don't think it's this "big fish small fish" thing here. And I doubt animals are actually "happy" about being eaten up by humanity. For me it's sometimes a bit hard. I know a bit more (only a bit more) about biology than it's general and know what dangers the "misuse of nature" might cause. And yea, I like small fluffy stuff and can not understand the working of the mind which can slaughter them or torture them. But on the other hand, I heard that in some places of this plane (this plane widly inhabited by humans) there are more members in animal-saving organizations than children-saving ones. And This actually anguish me far more than the death of any fluffy bunny. But it is yet again an other question...
However I don't like to say it is "our nature" or similar. I don't really the like "human-instict" thing. I not really know English technical terminology, but humans have no instinct/drive like animals. (it's a biologycal fact, where instinct is kind of behaviour) We have motivations and so, but our nervous system is far more complex (not mentioning the soul). There are some religions (eg. in Asia) which claims something like every life has the appropriate same value. So their follovers do not "slaughter" flys or rats etc [I hope it won't deeply hurt anybody, I do not mean to.] I can't share this view. We have to work hard for our bread (extract from King James' trnslation: Genesis3, 18-19 " Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread..." but it's also very trivial without examples I suppose ) So for me morale is not equal with "kill no thing". Than what would I eat? I really like chicken with good potatoe .
However I have a total different opinion on "why moral was "invented" but it won't suprise you much, I tihnk. Some says it's weakness, some says it's "advance". But well, as in nowdays we have to count with sociology (which I have 2 terms of) it become some dry definition of "the collection of norms/standards". For me it's still about "good" and "bad", hence about "Truth" with big T. An other byway I would not like to take now...
TheDeath,
I'm happy you like them and you understand. And I hope I did not make many mistakes in spelling because I spoted some in the quotes ^^"
I meant "too much" that it would take us too far, it would make the discuss to complex to theorize about these many things It was a graphic example though. Yes, how could we expect what we ourselves don't follow. You may like these if you have some time: Matthew 7, 12; Romans 2, 21-24. [I might link you a Bible if you need]
No, you never ever wrote here about machinery soul; someone other used it as an example or similar. I tried to reflect for the 3 of you
Hmmm... You are extraordinary again for me  Having no soul is definitely puts things in an other "rank" for me. One thing, they have (even is self-aware) less quality, attribute. They lack things that gives them the need for eg. tolerace or Freedom (freedom in a bit deeper sense); not only the "inner" "ego-need" ("I want it") but the "outer", "real-need" as well ("You can't be without, no mater how hard you try."). It is my opinion. A bunny or a monky is very well without elections in the wild. We, humans can't "get rid" of our "moral intentions". Or if one manages, it is not called a human any more by others. ("It's no human, it's insane, it's an animal.") IT's what I was writing about being ammoral. A self-aware being without soul is quite much much different than one with soul. (or else what "good" the soul had if it makes "us" not different?)
Hidden meanings behind your name? You don't want to scare me, do you?
So, now, I think I finally understand what you would like me to answer. (it took some while ) The "would be" question. So, if some maniac madman managed to make some self-aware, intelligent machines, and I (and others, who would be numerous, I'm sure) could not stop it, I think I would avoid and evade them as much as I could. Sounds kind of stupid, but the actual idea disturbs me greatly. I think I would try to prevent it. I would find it pervert and pointless.
Now you know.
Your insights on resisting the instincts are to my taste. But its hard work to do. And I must agree that some times it's near impossible. (Needs diamond will not to eat what you conider edible after 2 weeks of starving eg. ) But you suprise me with your trouble about the bears (just to stay with the example). It's not bad, if you not kill anything in your way but don't fall into deep remorse because animals. Yes, they are loveable and magnificent. But there is a borderline. Killing a bear is not the same as killing a human (and I'm not saying becaus I think you don't know this); if it troubles you, try to imagine what it feels to dwell for one second longer and let die a human whose life you could have saved. The bear intact, the human dead is worse for me than the other option. And this makes me not to feel such deep remorse towards the bear. Thinking of it, yes I would feel bad, seeing the corpsse of the poor imp, but a saved human life should be enough to console. (I hope you don't misunderstand. I'm not saying you are a soulless git who would let humans die or such, just try to understand you, and may help.)
I think I reflected mvassilev as well. Do we have something else to discuss? Or would you like to continue with this -I'm not against it.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 12, 2008 01:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Your insights on resisting the instincts are to my taste. But its hard work to do. And I must agree that some times it's near impossible. (Needs diamond will not to eat what you conider edible after 2 weeks of starving eg. ) But you suprise me with your trouble about the bears (just to stay with the example). It's not bad, if you not kill anything in your way but don't fall into deep remorse because animals. Yes, they are loveable and magnificent. But there is a borderline. Killing a bear is not the same as killing a human (and I'm not saying becaus I think you don't know this); if it troubles you, try to imagine what it feels to dwell for one second longer and let die a human whose life you could have saved. The bear intact, the human dead is worse for me than the other option. And this makes me not to feel such deep remorse towards the bear. Thinking of it, yes I would feel bad, seeing the corpsse of the poor imp, but a saved human life should be enough to console. (I hope you don't misunderstand. I'm not saying you are a soulless git who would let humans die or such, just try to understand you, and may help.)
Well yeah of course I did not meant that bears are more "important" than humans, but that they have a life as well, so both should be "important" (I hope you get what I mean).
I think that, even though we might be superior to the others (e.g: machines not having a soul, meaning inferior, or animals), our true value comes from not exploiting the weak and doing good only to the 'superiors' (i.e us). I think that restricting our 'good' intentions only to the subset of the superiors (humans) only makes us tyrants that only help other tyrants and never for the inferior.
For example, our inner values and 'goodness' comes from respecting anything, and even helping those inferior. No matter how inferior they may be (for e.g: they don't have a soul, or intelligence), being good means to avoid the "who cares about the inferiority" tyrant approach. Respecting only ourselves (or those with the same 'superiority' or status) is basically what a tyrant king does. The King only helps those appropiate to his status/superiority or family (i.e prince, friends, etc.) and usually considers the commoners inferior and 'who cares'-approach. It is wrong. I think in the end, even though they may be 'inferior' and "unimportant", it is this decision, to have charity for all, that defines our value, and ultimately what makes us 'good'. It is not important what 'they' do, but rather what 'we' do, and that's what makes the difference. For example, if a polar bears acts from instincts to eat you, that does not mean you have to do the same to other animals/bears. It is not important what the bear does (because he's inferior after all), it is important what you do -- and respecting those inferior or weaker is the first step to building a 'good' character, IMO. Marking those inferior as 'disposable' or 'worthless' or etc. makes us selfish tyrants.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted May 12, 2008 01:41 PM |
|
|
Anakrom:
use the enter key
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted May 13, 2008 01:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well yeah of course I did not meant that bears are more "important" than humans, but that they have a life as well, so both should be "important" (I hope you get what I mean).
I think that, even though we might be superior to the others (e.g: machines not having a soul, meaning inferior, or animals), our true value comes from not exploiting the weak and doing good only to the 'superiors' (i.e us). I think that restricting our 'good' intentions only to the subset of the superiors (humans) only makes us tyrants that only help other tyrants and never for the inferior.
For example, our inner values and 'goodness' comes from respecting anything, and even helping those inferior. No matter how inferior they may be (for e.g: they don't have a soul, or intelligence), being good means to avoid the "who cares about the inferiority" tyrant approach. Respecting only ourselves (or those with the same 'superiority' or status) is basically what a tyrant king does. The King only helps those appropiate to his status/superiority or family (i.e prince, friends, etc.) and usually considers the commoners inferior and 'who cares'-approach. It is wrong. I think in the end, even though they may be 'inferior' and "unimportant", it is this decision, to have charity for all, that defines our value, and ultimately what makes us 'good'. It is not important what 'they' do, but rather what 'we' do, and that's what makes the difference. For example, if a polar bears acts from instincts to eat you, that does not mean you have to do the same to other animals/bears. It is not important what the bear does (because he's inferior after all), it is important what you do -- and respecting those inferior or weaker is the first step to building a 'good' character, IMO. Marking those inferior as 'disposable' or 'worthless' or etc. makes us selfish tyrants.
Well it's not about inferior or superior but rather a scale of values. Which hold more value eg. in a situation of danger? Value in figurative sense. (well, for me value has this figurative meaning in the first place and after that it is money etc. ;but that is my very own perception of the word)
I think you were a bit hasty whaen writing "respecting anything". Respecting anything is quite cloudy for me? Anything, any thing that I meet? Or did you mean being ready to respect anything; that any thing may worth it, so not to predestinate? However there Are things to avoid and even loath (of course it's judged raher subjective most of the cases).
"No matter how inferior they may be"
A soulless thing is rather "totally different " than inferior. You know: gramm can't be inferior to meter. They are "only" weighed (valued) hard with the same scale. In case of animals eg. it of course not this easy. As we are very similar to animals (biologically -"structrally"); but it's only one aspect. I myself wouldn't try to compare the rights or values of an animal to that of a human. What is the base of the contrast. What is the stable "zero-point"? It's far more (IMO) than saying "inferior" or "superior".
But I can agree with the " we do - they do" thing. Yes, everyone accounts for their deeds and their own conscience. (I'm worried about the meaning of this sentence... I'm afraid it can easily be misunderstood. )
But I (hope and remember) did not mark animals "disposable". Edible, yes, but not wothless, useless or disposable. And well, I do not think /consider this plane is "OURS". No, IMO we do not own it, we live in it. It's kind a present. Being given a big cake spit on it, gobble it or eat it is not the same. Let me use an unfortunate and bit "rude" expression: animals are "affordable loss". Meaning if we must, we may put them in a lover level of preference. (However they certeanly Are in a lower level of preference anyway compared to human lives.) I hope you don't misunderstand it. I am not against the protection of nature but I think concrete borders should be erected. And of course the protect of nature is our own good in the first place as well. Having fresh air and clear water can be certainly useful. And "Nature" hass it's own value in itself; meaning beauty eg. But I don't think it should be protected "for itself" in a l'art pour l'art way. IT's a complex problem of practical and figurative views and values (I have problems with finding proper words for that sentence, please forgive it's clumsyness).
For me it's not about tyrannity or oppression. Eating is not egoist. And life is somehow centerd around itself. But it shouldn't stop us to "take the right path not the easy one". It's hard, yes and confusing, cloudly, but in some time it becomes nice and clear. What we can do is not to say "OK" automatically to anything we hear, think or sometimes feel.
|
| |
|
|
