Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!deimos!cveg!cseg!lag From: lag@cseg.uucp (L. Adrian Griffis) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Robots and Free Will Keywords: Robots, Electronic Warfare Message-ID: <1724@cveg.uucp> Date: 30 Jan 89 16:30:21 GMT References: <3336@sdsu.UUCP> <43333@linus.UUCP> <1643@cveg.uucp> Sender: netnews@cveg.uucp Organization: College of Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Lines: 67 This and another reply to my posting were mailed to me, presumably by mistake. I am posting them for the authors. I apologize for the delay. I've been very busy, and we have had a number of hardware problems with our network. The article follows: ---------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 18:35:03 EST From: "John A. Ockerbloom" Subject: Re: Robots and Free Will Newsgroups: comp.ai In-Reply-To: <1643@cveg.uucp> References: <3336@sdsu.UUCP> <43333@linus.UUCP> Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept, New Haven CT 06520-2158 Status: R In article <1643@cveg.uucp> you write: >It's naive to talk about the morality of a weapon. There have always >been needlessly cruel or inappropriate uses of a weapon, and people who >should not be trusted to use any weapon appropriately. Talking about the >morality of a weapon system distracts us from the real issues: > > o When should we use weapons. > > o How should we use them. > > o Who should make these decisions. > > o If the weapon system itself makes these decisions, how can we > be sure we will be satisfied with the decisions it makes. Those are important issues, to be sure, and I don't see how asking about the morality of manufacturing a weapon system ignores them; in fact, I would think these issues would be vital to answering such questions. You may reply "But the 'morality' of the weapons lies in their use, not in their manufacture." The problem is that I don't think you can completely divorce the latter from the former. Whoever is making the weapons has some idea of how these weapons are likely to be used (Indeed, in order to create a market for the weapons the manufacturer must show the consumer that the weapons have convenient uses; otherwise, nobody would buy them.) Unless you have tight control over who gets your products and how they use them, you may very well be aiding and abetting people who are using them for immoral purposes. I think this is a cause for concern. >It's terrible to think about the immediate distruction caused by the >atom bomb that we dropped on Hiroshima, and worse still to contemplate >the lingering death that it left behind. But how many American and >Japanese lives would we have thrown away if we had simply let the war >run its course without the atom bomb. Well, this is really a separate issue, but you should consider (if you haven't already) the different moral questions involved in intentionally killing voluntary combatants and intentionally killing innocent civilians. (I realize that many of the armed forces in WW2 were draftees, which makes the situation more complicated, but I don't think you can judge Hiroshima solely on the basis of how many people died.) John Ockerbloom -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ockerbloom@cs.yale.EDU ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!ockerbloom ocker@yalecs.BITNET Box 5323 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520 UseNet: lag@cseg.UUCP L. Adrian Griffis BITNET: AG27107@UAFSYSB