This is one of the topics up for the vote for our gathering in Santa Monica this Sunday. I just thought I'd post this here because several people have emailed me with their opinions and annoyances on this hypothetical scenario (a scenario that may occur in the not-too-distant future).
So, feel free to reply to this posting with your thoughts! Whether or not we talk about this at our gathering, it's a topic worthy of online ponderings.
************************************************
Topic #5 for this Sunday's discussion group:
AM I WRONG TO BEAT MY STEPFORD WIFE? Imagine this near-future scenario: Craig, a computer programmer, is arrested and charged with beating Sally, his mail-order wife. Sally also happens to be an android "Stepford wife." Sally says she feels fear and pain when hit, hates being beaten, and wants to leave Craig. She appears to pass the "Turing test" to most people's satisfaction-- she acts, talks, and looks just like a real person. If there are any differences between Sally and a human, they are subtle. You have to cut her open to see that she's an android. The prosecutor is charging Craig with assault and battery, wife battering, false imprisonment (he won't let her leave him), rape, attempted brainwashing (he repeatedly tries to shut Sally off, reboot her, and reprogram her), and disturbing the peace.
Craig says this: "Sally has merely been programmed to act human, but is not in fact a person. She has no consciousness or subjective life. She doesn't have a mind, so she has no actual values or desires, and she can't feel pain or pleasure, happiness or suffering. Sally is similar to a human, but isn't one. I can detect the differences between the emotional and intellectual responses of a real person and the simulated emotions and thoughts of my android. Appearances to the contrary, she's simply a piece of property, which I legally bought, and thus I can do with as I please. It's no more immoral to beat your "Stepford wife" than to pound on you keyboard when frustrated with your computer-- nobody is there to suffer harm."
"Plus, it's best for everyone if I safely channel my desires for pair-bonding with an android wife. I'd make any real woman miserable. And I recognize my violent tendencies; marrying a real woman would put her at risk of one of my outbursts. I feel it would indeed be wrong to beat a real human, and I don't want to do that. I'm sacrificing authentic intimacy with a real human for the convenience and lowered stress of a relationship with a semi-real, simulation of a wife. Yes, I sometimes miss the true, human interactions I had when I had real girlfriends. But the trade-off is worth it. I get to harmlessly fulfill my fantasies with my beautiful android. And I'm not burdened with the responsibilities of a relationship with a real person, which I'm incapable of fulfilling. Don't I have the right to pursue my happiness in this way? I'm not at fault. In fact, the only one at fault here is the manufacturer of Sally, who sold me a defective product that doesn't operate as advertised—it complains too much, doesn't always do as I ask, fights back, goes to the police, and gets me in legal trouble. I should sue them!"
We "philosophers" have been asked by the prosecutor for help in forming a strategy to convict Craig. Coincidentally, Craig and his lawyer have asked us for legal advice for Craig's defense. How should we advise them?
So, feel free to reply to this posting with your thoughts! Whether or not we talk about this at our gathering, it's a topic worthy of online ponderings.
************************************************
Topic #5 for this Sunday's discussion group:
AM I WRONG TO BEAT MY STEPFORD WIFE? Imagine this near-future scenario: Craig, a computer programmer, is arrested and charged with beating Sally, his mail-order wife. Sally also happens to be an android "Stepford wife." Sally says she feels fear and pain when hit, hates being beaten, and wants to leave Craig. She appears to pass the "Turing test" to most people's satisfaction-- she acts, talks, and looks just like a real person. If there are any differences between Sally and a human, they are subtle. You have to cut her open to see that she's an android. The prosecutor is charging Craig with assault and battery, wife battering, false imprisonment (he won't let her leave him), rape, attempted brainwashing (he repeatedly tries to shut Sally off, reboot her, and reprogram her), and disturbing the peace.
Craig says this: "Sally has merely been programmed to act human, but is not in fact a person. She has no consciousness or subjective life. She doesn't have a mind, so she has no actual values or desires, and she can't feel pain or pleasure, happiness or suffering. Sally is similar to a human, but isn't one. I can detect the differences between the emotional and intellectual responses of a real person and the simulated emotions and thoughts of my android. Appearances to the contrary, she's simply a piece of property, which I legally bought, and thus I can do with as I please. It's no more immoral to beat your "Stepford wife" than to pound on you keyboard when frustrated with your computer-- nobody is there to suffer harm."
"Plus, it's best for everyone if I safely channel my desires for pair-bonding with an android wife. I'd make any real woman miserable. And I recognize my violent tendencies; marrying a real woman would put her at risk of one of my outbursts. I feel it would indeed be wrong to beat a real human, and I don't want to do that. I'm sacrificing authentic intimacy with a real human for the convenience and lowered stress of a relationship with a semi-real, simulation of a wife. Yes, I sometimes miss the true, human interactions I had when I had real girlfriends. But the trade-off is worth it. I get to harmlessly fulfill my fantasies with my beautiful android. And I'm not burdened with the responsibilities of a relationship with a real person, which I'm incapable of fulfilling. Don't I have the right to pursue my happiness in this way? I'm not at fault. In fact, the only one at fault here is the manufacturer of Sally, who sold me a defective product that doesn't operate as advertised—it complains too much, doesn't always do as I ask, fights back, goes to the police, and gets me in legal trouble. I should sue them!"
We "philosophers" have been asked by the prosecutor for help in forming a strategy to convict Craig. Coincidentally, Craig and his lawyer have asked us for legal advice for Craig's defense. How should we advise them?
posted by:
|
Los Angeles
|
-
Re: AM I WRONG TO BEAT MY STEPFORD WIFE?
Fri, July 28, 2006 - 10:49 PMIt looks like this question is the winner of the email vote! So, this is what we'll be talking about this Sunday at our gathering in Santa Monica. Here are some thoughts on the discussion, and a few "optional readings" on the matter that I found.
First, to narrow our discussion of the topic, I think we can safely assume that it's wrong to beat your human wife or husband. If you seriously want to dispute that point, that's a topic for another day. Assuming that, our issue hangs on whether we consider androids or other artificial intelligences like Sally to have consciousness and a subjective life, and to thereby deserve the rights and moral considerations humans enjoy. The optional readings I suggest below address this issue.
By the way, our discussion isn't necessarily limited just to issues about whether computers could be conscious and have subjectivity like us, though that's the main issue. For example, if you think a machine like Sally has no consciousness or subjective life, but that it still is wrong to beat her/it, come give us your reasons for this. Or, if you think the Sally's of the future will have minds similar to humans, and yet still not deserve protection from harm, tell us why you think so.
Optional, quick readings: if you'd like to read some very short articles related to our topic, I found four of them, plus an online quiz. Feel free to read any one or more of them, or none of them. Most importantly, come to the discussion Sunday with your own ideas and questions on our philosophical puzzle.
First, try this short, light article, "Humanoid Robotics: Ethical Considerations" at www.inl.gov/adaptiverobo...rations.shtml
Second, another very short piece, an explanation of a philosophical view called Eliminative Materialism, which argues, surprisingly, that even we humans do not have conscious minds. If this is so, we're in the same boat as the Stepford wives and husbands of the future; presumably, either all of us or none of us would deserve moral rights and considerations. Here's the link:
www.answers.com/main/ntquery
Third, a short reading from our usual, trusted source, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plato.stanford.edu/entries/neuroscience/
It's unnecessary to read the whole essay; just read the section most relevant to our discussion, section 4, "Consciousness Explained?"
Fourth, more light reading, "Sentience: The next moral dilemma (Humankind will have to decide how to live with a new sentient race)", news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/...942,00.htm
Last, this link (mind.wjh.harvard.edu/) is not to an article but a fun, 10-minute test from the Harvard psychology department that measures your ideas about who and what has a mind, (e.g., infants, computers, chimps, dogs, deities, dead people), and uses your answers for their research. The test most relevant to our topic is the "Consciousness" test (scroll down and look for this in the left hand column). When done, it tells you how you compare with the average person. This doesn't inform you about our topic, but it may make you more aware of your own intuitions and gut reactions on the degree to which various things, natural or man made, have or might have a mind and consciousness. This website is similar to the "Implicit Racism Test" I listed in this email a few months ago.
One more, quick thought on the matter. An essay I came across made this simple point. "The misattribution problem: False Positives and Negatives. There's scope for at least two kinds of error. FALSE POSITIVES: if we house, feed, and otherwise protect agents believing them wrongly to be CONSCIOUS, we unjustly deprive genuine claimants [of consciousness] of those benefits (unless resources are unlimited). FALSE NEGATIVES: if we withhold benefits from agents, believing them (wrongly) to be NON-CONSCIOUS, then we have treated them unjustly…" (From Steve Torrance, Universities of Sussex and Middlesex UK, stevet@cogs.sussex.ac.uk)
