Sela wrote:So if I understand your position as a whole correctly - and as illustrated by just this select quote - you're not taking a strictly moral position but a utilitarian one? Or rather - you're defining right and wrong based on what helps or harms us?
As in "we - the human species - derive no benefit from thinking about anything other than the continued propagation and well being of the human species. Therefore it is *morally acceptable* to do as we please with non-humans provided it is not eventually to our detriment?"
Exatcly, I could not have said it better my self.
If you define right and wrong like that, then I can see how from your perspective it makes no sense to respect the rights of weaker, exploitable sentient species. That said, *I* disagree with you. The African population that was enslaved - while obviously human - were different culturally, morally, technologically, socially, etc. from their enslavers. Enslaving them and exploiting their labors might have 'practically' helped or harmed the human race - that comes down to a question of economics. That said, I choose this example since we can all virtually uniformly say that it was morally reprehensible!
It helped one part of the human race or maybe even the entire human race but at a horrible cost to the human race at the same time. With robots there is no cost to the human race.
The two are hardly compatible.
Now if you accept my premise that that was immoral, what makes it immoral? Sure, we were both 'human' - but what *about* that humanity sets it above being enslaved?
The fact that both of us discussing this are human.
If we were say sentient dragons than there would be no logical reason for us not to enslave humans.
If I were a sentient dragon and you a human it would be logically for me to want to enslave you and for you not to want that.
If the roles were reversed so would the logic be. How is that hard to understand?
You *might* be able to argue that the 'net *practical* benefit to the human race' was diminished by the enslavement and colonization, but it's a hard argument to make.
Well for one colonialism spawned the current situation with an impoverished third world selling out its resources and ruining the environment for humanity while feeding the glutenous 1st world who in turn ruin the environment through rampant consumerism.
Without it Europe would have not gotten so rich and glutenous like it is today and America would not have existed. As such, the earth would be quite a different place.
Had there been no colonialism the world would be poorer now as a whole yes. There would have been less progress and technology and the 1st world would have been worse off. But in the long run the earth would not be so polluted and in the long run the poorer world would have been better for man kind.
Is it just the genes? If so - why is this set of genes so special? Human beings are far from being perfectly genetically homogenous; should we deny rights to someone who further mutates away from their human genetic purity?
Are you seriously saying what I think you are?
You man are more insane than I.
In short - if instead of finding African Humans to enslave the white slave-trade ships had found an intelligent, self-aware, conversant, ''human-like'' community of proto-humans; how would it be any different to enslave them and exploit their labors?
If they are humans, than it is bad. If they are not homo sapiens than it is not bad.
How is that so hard to realise?
My entire point is that since we are humans, the only point of view we should ever hold is THE HUMAN ONE.
Why would you care for the feelings of robots? Especially if you made them to be servants in the first place.
I don't really understand how you can disagree with me since if we did enslave robots it would be to the benefit of us both. And we would lose nothing for it. So it is a win win situation for the both of us. How can wining be bad?