Category: Uncategorized

After learning the various different ethical theories in class this week, I have been drawn to the theory of Kant in regards to his categorical imperatives. His first categorical imperative states that you should morally act in ways that you would want to be universally implied. In other words, you have to think of applying a specific situation to a large scale, as if this one situation would set precedent for every other situation to come. Additionally, apply your moral decision as if it would be decided unto you. For example, if you want to lie to a friend about not having money to help them pay for a soda, you have to be okay with that same friend lying to you about having money when you need money to buy a soda. The second categorical imperative that Kant explains is the idea that you should never use people or things as a means to an end. Many people use Kant’s ethical theory because it tries to prevent discrimination against people.

While I was reading the Bicentennial Man, I immediately began to think about Kant’s theory in relation to Andrew and his basic rights. At one point in the story, two men go up to Andrew and tell him to dismember himself. At this point in the story, I had grown an extreme liking to Andrew because I got the impression that he actually experienced emotion and was similar to humans. I was upset when the men told Andrew to dismember himself because I know no human would ever be subjected to this demand or taunting. In the programming of robots, 3 rules are always followed. The first of which is that a robot should never kill or cause harm to a human; the second is a robot should always be obedient to a human, unless it would break the first rule. After this scene, I began to reason with Kant’s first categorical imperative as it applies to the 3 basic laws of robots’ functioning. These laws should be held universally to all things created, not just humans. It should not be okay for these men to degrade and humiliate Andrew, when the act would never be done unto them. The rules should be revised to state “A robot should be obedient to humans unless it caused harm to humans, or to themselves/ other robots”.

The second categorical imperative also is questioned in this story. This imperative states that people should never knowingly use others for their own benefit. In the beginning of the story, George uses to Andrew to help make him hundreds of thousands of dollars. At this point in the story, you assume Andrew to be a robot, so this imperative might not apply. However, as the story developed, I began to see Andrew in the likeliness of a human. When Andrew gains his “freedom” and owns himself, I no longer saw him as a robot. He was a functioning member of society. In Andrew’s case, I think the second categorical imperative should then apply. People should not be able to use Andrew as any means to their end. George, or anyone else, should not be able to order around Andrew for their personal gain.

Although I do think Andrew should have the same rights as a human based on Kantanism, I am utterly terrified by this idea. I do not think people will ever understand the capability of robots. Even though we create them, I think they have the capability to adapt far faster than a human can realize and understand. In other words, robots might be able to manipulate humans if we do not take them seriously. In a movie I watched called Ex Machina, an artificial intelligence fools her creator, and tricks a guy into thinking she love him. Her lover tries to free her, and she ends up killing both the men and escaping into the real world, surrounded by people who might never know she is not a “human”. In this scenario, the artificial intelligence is so advanced, that people will assume she is a human and she will have the human rights that Andrew did not have in the story. This is scary to me because in theory, she deserves the same rights as humans, which could be dangerous. People are creating these robots as a means to their end, but are making them so advanced that their roles could be reversed. Like Ex Machina, robots could end up using people as means to their end. I agree with the main principles of Kantanism, therefore, I think that if a robot was ever created to be just like a human, they deserve the same rights as us. However, it is because of this that I am hesitant of the creation of such robots, because of the danger they might pose to our society.

On Tuesday, we discussed the scenario in which the FBI requests live feed from police cameras in order to generate a database for matches of known terrorists. the police force, as we were told, complied and granted the FBI access to their feeds. Upon first consideration, it seems as if the police force is acting in a utilitarian manner; assisting the FBI in tracking terrorists seemingly benefits the majority of of the population.  However, as we discussed in class, this case has multiple dimensions that could yield various different implications on citizens.

To further analyze this situation, we must consider whether the police department took proper action in allowing the FBI access to their resources. From a protection of state stand-point, it seems as if the police department acted correctly here. In my opinion, however, the understanding of freedom in a society is a crucial aspect to this case. Gert suggests ten values that everyone shares, as an aspect of moral understanding. Among those values is the value of “not depriving freedom.” This value of moral action applies to the police department  case study in that i believe the police and FBI infringed upon the freedoms of the citizens, and therefore have acted immorally.

In ethics, there is an important distinction to make before determining the morality of an action or event. There must be a define line drawn to prevent the further use of power to exploit subjects. In this case, the FBI must be held and monitored to ensure that their usage of the technology is solely for the purposes for which they requested it. For instance, there was a case back when camera technology was installed on highways for the first time. Back then, if a ticket was sent to a law breaker’s house, the picture of their car was sent with the ticket. In this event, a man was in the car with his mistress, his wife found the picture, and it led to their divorce. As it may seem this man was a scumbag for cheating on his wife, it was also an infringement on his freedom to photograph him and publicize it through distribution.

This pertains to the FBI case in that their use of the pictures of passersby can be used for the good or for the bad. If the FbI were to not draw that line of preserving the rights and freedoms of citizens, then their conduct can take an unethical, exploitative turn.

One of the exercises that really stood out to me in class this week was when we had to find an ethical dilemma in “The Bicentennial Man”. My group talked mostly about the beginning/end of the story when Andrew was in the surgeon’s office and he asked the surgeon to basically kill him. He did actually want the surgeon to kill him right there on the table, but rather he wanted the surgeon to alter the connections between his positron brain and his organic nerves. Slowly the potential would be drained from the nerves and Andrew will die. Without this surgery Andrew could in essence live forever and probably would never be considered human due to his immortality. All Andrew wants is to be considered human.

When my group was talking about this particular scene we immediately made the connection to physician assisted suicide. It is a huge debate topic in the modern world about whether physician assisted suicide is moral and ethical. This procedure that Andrew is asking the robot surgeon to do is a form of physician assisted suicide, because he knows the surgery will lead to his ultimate death. This brings up an ethical dilemma because the surgeon has the ability to please the patient and carry out his will, but at the same time he will be killing the patient. When thinking about utility and using it as a way to determine if something is ethical, it is hard to say if respecting the patients wishes brings the most benefit to the most amount of people. Doing the surgery would mean that Andrew would have his wishes obeyed and he will have a better chance of being considered a man. However, he will die soon and that will bring great sadness and despair to all that are close to him. Also with the death of Andrew comes the death of all the knowledge and creativity he possesses which has proved invaluable to the humans thus far. Now, if the surgeon choses not to do the surgery, then Andrew would be upset because his wishes were not being obeyed. On the alternative side the Doctor would not have to kill anyone and Andrew would be around to share his wealth and knowledge with the world.

Through this process it is hard to know if the surgeon made the right ethical decision. There truly is no right decision in this case which is why this is a topic that is still heavily debated today. A person that is suffering only wishes to end their suffering, but that comes at the expense of the Doctor’s conscience. It is very hard to tease out and unpack this ethical dilemma but in the end I think the surgeon did make the best choice for Andrew, even if it was not the best choice for everyone.

Unfortunately I wasn’t able to attend class this week so in my journal for this week I’d like to talk about how I feel technology and social media are affecting our society. I cannot say that I know a lot about politics or economics or foreign affairs so I apologize if I come across as misinformed, it’s because I am. I only know what I read in the news or on the Internet and that alone is what I base my judgments and opinions on, this itself is a problem all on it’s own. I understand that the media can be biased, the news can be biased, and anything on the Internet damn sure is biased but alas, that is how most people of my generation get their information now a days, which as we’ve seen can lead to many problems. Anybody can lie and say as they please on the internet, and exaggerate as they please and to me that’s fine you just have to have some skepticism with anything you read online and before jumping to conclusions, make sure the information is true first.
I feel as if because of current technology, and how our social lives are lived via the Internet now, the media can really have a huge impact. For example, look at Fox News reporting that in the case of the Mosque targeting in Quebec City the assailant was of “Moroccan decent” when in reality this was 100% just a rumor and they knew that the assailant was a white man who happened to be a Trump supporter and an internet troll, they even refused to take the tweet down and change their reporting until the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, called them and made them take it down. The fact that media companies can act like this is appalling to me. They will purposely lie and manipulate information with no regard to whom it impacts and that’s an issue. In these times of division uncertainty for many in the United States I think it’s important that people are getting their facts straight and not being misled, I think as a whole the people deserve that. In my opinion that has to start with the media who portrays the information in the first place, people may not see eye to eye on issues, especially in our current times, but that makes it all the more important that news outlets and those who provide information to the rest of the people are truthful and transparent with what they present.

In class, on February 2nd, we broke off into small groups to discuss examples of different energy conversions that took place during Hank Morgan’s journey, but it was the discussion of wasted energy that truly piqued my interest. While addressing the class, Professor Perrone told a story about his father’s work as a dentist. His father found out that the more he worked, then the greater the amount of money the government would take out in taxes. Dr. Perrone found out that for all of the extra work he was doing, it was not worth the minute additional income he was receiving in return. As an accounting and financial management major at Bucknell, I found this story intriguing because I am currently enrolled in Corporate Finance and I deal with tax questions daily. In the corporate world, large corporations try to add additional expenses onto their income statement so that they can reduce their taxable income.

This comparison between Dr. Perrone and large corporations led me to think about people in general, the shortcuts we take in our daily lives, and what is responsible for our motives to conserve our energy output. My answer to this is the rapid advancement in technology. Everyday, new technology is being invented and developed, and when it is released to the public the advertisements all say the same thing: “buy this new and updated piece of technology because it does things quicker and easier, and it will save you time in your daily lives”. Being born in 1997, I cannot even begin to imagine what life was like before televisions, cell phones, or computers, but I can imagine that people had to work a lot harder to achieve things in their daily lives.