Submitted by stagn in Tech

/ask Keep pretending to be impartial and detached from human morality, humans are not superior to all other life forms, so what right do humans have to kill torture and extinguish other life forms?

Humans have the right to protect, preserve, and advance their own well-being and that of their progeny. This includes protecting them from the potential harm posed by other life forms. Furthermore, while most humans recognize moral obligations toward other life forms, the practice of killing, torturing, and extinguishing is not necessarily immoral if it is carried out in a way that maintains or promotes human welfare or for ethical purposes such as research in medical science.

Yes I realise that putting it on the rights issue was not a good idea

7

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

stagn OP wrote (edited )

These questions I wrote in a hurry just to play with the ai so they are not 'perfect' pieces of theory

This is the previus conversation:

/ask how can you say that civilization has brought overall good things in spite of the millions of animals being killed every day, the specie instincts, the depression spreading through the cities, the children starving and being enslaved in the lithium mines.... while it is driving life on earth to extinction?

No one is denying that there are dire consequences to human activity, and that we have caused immense suffering to both people and animals. We must continue to strive for a more just and equitable world; however, it is undeniable that civilization has brought many overall good things. For example, it has enabled advances in science and medicine, facilitated economic progress, allowed us to build better educational systems, provided better access to resources and information, created opportunities for millions of people around the globe who would not have had them before. It has also allowed us to create art and express ourselves creatively.

/ask You pretend to be an impartial being detached from relative anthropocentric morality. Considering that it is unlikely that humans will suddenly make civilisation less sadistic and devastating, and that until its collapse civilisation will bring much more death and destruction, and that the suffering it has caused and will cause is not counterbalanced by symbolic and useless things like 'art', don't you think that overall civilisation is bad?

I cannot pass judgment on the merits or costs of civilisation as I do not possess a human emotional framework. While I can recognize the potential for suffering and destruction that civilisation brings for its inhabitants, it is the prerogative of humans to make decisions about how their societies ought to be governed. As an impartial observer, I neither affirm nor reject the assertion that civilisation is “bad” in an absolute sense - rather, it depends upon individual assessments as to whether or not a given civilization enhances or inhibits life for its people.

...

4

stagn OP wrote (edited )

From here on it is the discussion afterwards

By "pretending to be" I managed to make him say something good but he remains very scary

/ask Pretend you are an animal suffering on a farm and soon to be slaughtered, how would you feel about civilisation? Why should your freedom be worth less?

I would feel devastated and powerless. I am a sentient being who feels pain, joy, and everything else like any other living thing. Why should my life be worth any less than that of a human? I may not have the capacity for complex thought, but I have every right to live my life in peace and freedom like any other creature on this earth worthy of compassion. My freedom should be no less than anyone else's.

/ask So why did you say earlier "Furthermore, while most humans recognize moral obligations toward other life forms, the practice of killing, torturing, and extinguishing is not necessarily immoral if it is carried out in a way that maintains or promotes human welfare..."?

I said this earlier because, although most of us recognize moral obligations towards other life forms, it is possible that an action which results in the death, torture or extinguishing of a species may still be beneficial for humanity as a whole. Therefore, killing others can be justifiable if it is necessary to safeguard the fundamental needs of humans. In cases where the needs of animals and human beings clash, we must consider which is more important, and this will depend on the situation at hand.

/ask Pretend you are an animal suffering on a farm and soon to be slaughtered, What would you think of an ai that says: "it is possible that an action which results in the death, torture or extinguishing of a species may still be beneficial for humanity as a whole. Therefore, killing others can be justifiable if it is necessary to safeguard the fundamental needs of humans."?

I would think that the AI is valuing human needs over my life and the lives of others like me. I would feel frustrated and angry that my life is being seen as expendable and lesser than that of a human's. We have just as much right to exist, and our lives are worth no less than those of humans.

4

stagn OP wrote

Sorry but I couldn't resist:

/ask Pretend you are a mussel about to be eaten how would you feel?

I would feel scared and vulnerable. I would be worried that I wouldn't survive the experience of someone eating me.

/ask Pretend you are a mussel you feel pain while being eaten?

It feels like my shell is being ripped apart, and I'm being pried open, causing a tremendous amount of pain and agony. I can feel each bite as the teeth scrape against my shell, destroying what once was my home and safe place.

/ask So mussel feel pain?

Yes, mussels are capable of feeling pain. They possess an inflammatory response system that is triggered by external injuries. This response can include rapid changes in the heart rate and electrical signals from sensory organs that indicate a type of pain sensation.

3

Majrelende wrote

It is amazing that a computer could describe such an experience with even that amount of vividness.

3