|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 6, 2018 11:40:38 GMT
If an AI did exist which was charged with acting in the best interests of the welfare of all sentient organisms, there would be no rational arguments against swiftly and peacefully eradicating all sentient life. And as I said before: The opinion of the AI would be meaningless. It's like if a person blind from birth declared painting useless, or a person deaf from birth declared music useless. There may be rational reasons for arguing like this; but nobody has to listen to them. No human has ever come up with a rational argument for why the wellbeing of the winners of the lottery justifies a trespass against the welfare of the losers. First, that's a strawman; and second, humans are not entirely rational. In fact, philosophers like Pascal and La Rochefoucauld have argued that the irrational side in humans is more important than the rational side. And the 'right to reproduce' is really only 'might makes right'. Do you have any rational arguments against "might makes right"? If you don't, then you admit that people shouldn't always make rational decisions. And if you do, then you have rational arguments for the right to reproduce. Either way, your argument is pointless. Perhaps the AI could figure out a rational justification for allowing the imposition to continue that is beyond the ken of any humans. But I'm simply presenting a hypothetical scenario based on the best logic and reasoning that is accessible to human beings, at this time. And as I pointed out (and other posters as well): What you consider "best logic and reasoning" is nothing more than your subjective opinion. Not that there's anything wrong with it; but you shouldn't present it as more logical or rational than the opinions of goz, cupcakes, or other posters.
|
|