Human Gods

This link was provided by Shonuff!


"Robot Suicide? Rogue Roomba Switches Self On, Climbs Onto Hotplate, Burns Up" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/13...68064.html



All kidding aside, let's tease this out a bit!

Lol...ok, now all kidding aside...

Consider: There was a point during which this robot did not "exist".

I make that statement parenthetically because the parts had always existed, but not in the form that had warranted a title.

Following the before existence period, the parts were assembled and through those parts, an existence came to be. All of the causes required by Aristotle can be accounted for here.

Following this existence, let us pretend that this Roomba was unsatisfied with it's "life".

The Roomba decided that based on it's limited capacity for understanding, it was going to off itself. And...it did.


Now, let's extend our imagination and pretend that the manufacturer needed a nonphysical substance to somehow inject into this Roomba so that it may vacuum their floors. And let's go a bit further and presume that this substance can be recovered after the robot committed self-robot-icide.

What recourse could the manufacturer take with the reminisce of the robots immaterial substance would be morally acceptable?

(February 1, 2014 at 1:42 am)The Reality Salesman Wrote: Human Gods

This link was provided by Shonuff!


"Robot Suicide? Rogue Roomba Switches Self On, Climbs Onto Hotplate, Burns Up" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/13...68064.html



All kidding aside, let's tease this out a bit!

Lol...ok, now all kidding aside...

Consider: There was a point during which this robot did not "exist".

I make that statement parenthetically because the parts had always existed, but not in the form that had warranted a title.

Following the before existence period, the parts were assembled and through those parts, an existence came to be. All of the causes required by Aristotle can be accounted for here.

Following this existence, let us pretend that this Roomba was unsatisfied with it's "life".

The Roomba decided that based on it's limited capacity for understanding, it was going to off itself. And...it did.


Now, let's extend our imagination and pretend that the manufacturer needed a nonphysical substance to somehow inject into this Roomba so that it may vacuum their floors. And let's go a bit further and presume that this substance can be recovered after the robot committed self-robot-icide.

What recourse could the manufacturer take with the reminisce of the robots immaterial substance would be morally acceptable?

It depends on the Roomba's moral capacity, and whatever capacity might yet remain inside said immaterial substance.

Do rocks have moral agency? What about ants? How about as we get up to dogs and cats? Does the demarcation line lie somewhere with our fellow primates or great apes?

Like just about anything in life it seems, we will have a desperate time on out hands as we try to compartmentalize and divide into distinct groups and categories things that exist on a gradient; and I beleive this includes moral agency.

So without knowing the Roomba's (and it's essence) capacity, I can't rightly make that call. I'd have to reserve an opinion or decision until I have more information to work with. I have no issue with corporations recycling plastic bottles, it would be another thing to allow the corporations to take excess animals from pounds and shelters and turn them into fertilizer. Once again, the proverbial devil is in the details.