Roid - Vol. 2 Ch. 6

[DeathDonut]

@RanaRana: "captive servant being abused by it`s owner"

Murdering the owner does not fall under self defense.

"you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force"

You don't. Duty to Retreat applies in many jurisdictions, and self-defense laws vary. In real life situation, when attacker backs off, that's generally it. Self defense succeeded. If they start running away and you shoot them in the back, that's no longer self defense, and you now belong to prison. The robot knocked the kid unconscious and wanted to finish that off. That's no longer self-defense, as the threat has long passed. That's attempted murder. With revenge as a motive.

The series, unfortunately, tried to make people feel sympathetic to robots, instead of exploring many other interesting topics. In doing so, this work uses sophistry, and overlooks certain things. For example, a machine is MUCH stronger and much more durable than a human is, does not feel pain and does not have emotions in general. It is, usually, a thing. The service bot of that kid is capable of lifting the kid with one arm, and can probably easily tear off his limbs one by one if it tried to. The kit has a strength of a kitten relative to him. The series do not explain how it lost its arm (the "abuse" screen is messy and unclear), but given that the bot looks like a solid metal frame, the kid would be more likely to break the bat than the robot.

The other thing to keep in mind is that something that speaks like a human, does not necessarily think like a human. However, humans are more likely to assume that since it speaks, it must be just like them. Sousou no Freiren drove that point home with its portrayal of demons. Same thing applies to machines. You'd have non-human intelligence, without human desires and without human fears.

 

[RanaRana]

@DeathDonut

Murdering the owner does not fall under self defense.

Presupposing it is murder, if it is self defense it is not murder.
Since murder is unjustified killing, and self defense is morally just
This is up to you to argue for.

"you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force"

You don't. Duty to Retreat applies in many jurisdictions, and self-defense laws vary. In real life situation, when attacker backs off, that's generally it. Self defense succeeded. If they start running away and you shoot them in the back, that's no longer self defense, and you now belong to prison. The robot knocked the kid unconscious and wanted to finish that off. That's no longer self-defense, as the threat has long passed. That's attempted murder. With revenge as a motive.

Yes you do, by infringing on the rights of others you forsake your own protection by these same rights.
Appealing to the law in a moral argument is nonsensical, for if a law is unjust, it only right to disobey it, one is obligated to do so
Even when disregarding that most jurisdictions follow stand-your-ground law or some form of castle doctrine.

A stand-your-ground law provides that people may use deadly force when they reasonably believe it to be necessary to defend against a threat of death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, rape...

Since the robot is a captive servant I think comparing it to being kidnapped is morally similar since both are restrictions of liberty?
So even under these laws he would be justified.
Which is also kinda relevant since I assume this story is set in japan.

The series do not explain how it lost its arm (the "abuse" screen is messy and unclear), but given that the bot looks like a solid metal frame, the kid would be more likely to break the bat than the robot.

You accuse the series of sophistry but here you are doing the same.
The robot girl asked how it happened and it showed his memories, it is fairly reasonable to infer this conclusion based on that.

The series, unfortunately, tried to make people feel sympathetic to robots, instead of exploring many other interesting topics. In doing so, this work uses sophistry, and overlooks certain things. For example, a machine is MUCH stronger and much more durable than a human is, does not feel pain and does not have emotions in general. It is, usually, a thing. The service bot of that kid is capable of lifting the kid with one arm, and can probably easily tear off his limbs one by one if it tried to. The kit has a strength of a kitten relative to him. The series do not explain how it lost its arm (the "abuse" screen is messy and unclear), but given that the bot looks like a solid metal frame, the kid would be more likely to break the bat than the robot.

The other thing to keep in mind is that something that speaks like a human, does not necessarily think like a human. However, humans are more likely to assume that since it speaks, it must be just like them. Sousou no Freiren drove that point home with its portrayal of demons. Same thing applies to machines. You'd have non-human intelligence, without human desires and without human fears.

Here you are arguing the premise that robots are people, if robots are not people then they would not have rights and my arguments would be moot.
But I think it is very clear from the intentions of the author, that robots in this story are meant to be people.
Demons are deceptive mimicry using predators, robots are thinking machines made in imitation of human cognition.
The alieness of a mind formed under different conditions than a human mind is an interesting subject for a story, but not the one addressed in this story

, a machine is MUCH stronger and much more durable than a human is

This is also a sentiment I see repeated in your post.
Being physically weaker does not put you in a morally privileged position over those that are stronger.
Many a slave whose body was shaped by hard labour would be physically stronger than his limpwristed pencil pushing owner.
Which still would have no bearing on the moral rightness of their actions.

 

[DeathDonut]

@RanaRana

"by infringing on the rights of others you forsake your own protection by these same rights."

That's not how civilized society does things. You do not forsake all your rights. Even in case of committing the crime, you still have the right for the defender, and your case should still be handled by a court of law.

"Appealing to the law in a moral argument is nonsensical"

Having a moral argument is nonsensical, as morality is relative and a matter of viewpoint, and basis of morality is arbitrarily chosen.

For example, "machines are superior to humans," would define a morality system, and in that system, human hurting a machine coudl be wrong, and machine killing a human could be right and virtuous.
Morality is relative.

You also do not have any inherent rights from morality standpoint, as rights are defined by a law, and not morality.
Likewise, the purpose of law, is ultimately, to maintain order, and allow society to function, and not to uphold justice or exact revenge.
Under rule of the law, elements of society that destabilize it are "corrected" one way or another. Removed from the populace, for example.

"Being physically weaker does not put you"

And being strong does not allow you to kill the weak.

If a little kid kicks you, do you kill him? That's the situation.
Do keep in mind that the owner of the robot is actually a kid. At most a teen.
If you're appealing to morality, then strong protecting the weak is one of the popular "virtues". And trying to kill one weaker than you even if they wronged you would be leaning towards "amoral". Hurting children is also usually frowned upon.

While the robot was in a bad situation, what it did was not the best choice. And that's why it got destroyed.

 

[RanaRana]

Having a moral argument is nonsensical,

Then why are you having this argument instead of dismissing me and going on with your day?

basis of morality is arbitrarily chosen.

Morality is derived from ones moral instincts which are shaped by evolution and influenced by societal values hold by ones culture.

You also do not have any inherent rights from morality standpoint, as rights are defined by a law, and not morality.

Rights do not come from law but from nature and are inalienable.
This is the framework of human rights under liberalism.
I`m not even a liberal and I can argue for this perspective.
But under this framework as a slave being abused he has the right to kill his owner to escape and any law enforcement or other organization that would come after him following that.
If you disagree with this statement then please take a moment to think what the logical conclusion would be when applied to other circumstances.
You can just reject human rights but then you must come with an alternative, otherwise you have no principles from which to derive your argument.
But even if you do so within this framework my argument still holds.

Likewise, the purpose of law, is ultimately, to maintain order, and allow society to function, and not to uphold justice or exact revenge.
Under rule of the law, elements of society that destabilize it are "corrected" one way or another. Removed from the populace, for example.

Law existing for nothing but maintaining "harmony" would lead to nothing but an unjust self serving tyranny.
Rights are the system by which Law is restrained from being tyrannical.
But we digress from the our initial issue.

And being strong does not allow you to kill the weak.

this ^
does not logically follow from "Being physically weaker does not put you"
You are accusing me of arguing for a position that I did not claim.

Do keep in mind that the owner of the robot is actually a kid. At most a teen.

While youth is factor that might reduce ones moral agency and thus reduce or remove his moral blame for his actions.
It does not bear any relevance on if the robot is right in defending his life and liberty.
Take for instance as example a child soldier trying to kill you, you would be in your right to kill him to defend your life but the child soldier might not be morally responsible for trying to kill you.

If a little kid kicks you, do you kill him? That's the situation.

This is not the situation, the situation is that the robot is being systematically abused to the point his body breaks down.
While also being it`s property and not living in a society where he can not be a free person
Not just a kid having a fit and harmlessly kicking your shin.

"amoral"

I think you mean Immoral, amoral is an absence of morality immoral is transgression of morality.
A lightning strike killing you would be amoral, whereas stealing a tv would be immoral.

 

[Alice_Cheshire]

@NightSide The thing is that the tech in this series doesn't actually line up with real world tech. Our advances towards actual AI are still nowhere near even remotely the stage to consider it a proper AI. The only things they're particularly good at are things we can explicitly program them for such as chess and go. Outside of that their capabilities are extremely limited. And on top of that all current AIs are very specialized.

In contrast we're advancing very quickly when it comes to restoring nerve function in some capacity and there have already been experiments to restore the legs of a paraplegic that have met with success. (However that's in regards to spinal injuries. In this series' case it seems like the issue is within the legs themselves.) A simple nerve interface that can transmit and receive nerve impulse signals actually isn't' that complicated all things considered. The only difficult part is knowing what parts of a given nerve is needs to hook into for what signals as well as the receiver on the other end needing to know how to convert those nerve impulse signals into a signal that will result in the desired movement.

We're far more likely to cure blindness long before we ever come anywhere close to an actual AI. Though that's not saying a lot since we're making some pretty good advances on that as well. Just within the past few years doctors were able to restore some semblance of sight to a blind person. It's very low resolution and monochrome currently but that's a great start. Within a few decades we could have an actual cure for blindness. Meanwhile we're unlikely to see a proper AI before at least the 2070s or so at the very least because it's just that difficult a task.

 

[Aulgh]

Yeah, I guess so.there are people who abstain from the usage of certain medical treatments or whatnot by choice.

 

[justforthelulz]

Does this qualify for the [Philosophical] tag?

 

[NIPHY]

If that Ai architect can teem up wit reina then they can turn the word up side down