Franklin Blogs

Essay 1 scribbles

20 Apr 202530 min read

Scribbles

REMEMBER TO DO CITATIONS AS WELL

Final Essay

introduction needs to be fixed With the rapid development of technologies, debates surrounding ethics and morality towards artificial intelligence and mechanicals bodies have increased. Regarding behaviour towards robot dogs, I would argue that it is not morally permissible to kick a robot dog. By understanding this issue through the lens of virtue ethics, we interpret the behaviours of a truly virtuous person and how by deciding to kick the robot dog, it provokes vicious behaviours and a degradation of moral character.

A1: in itself - the act of kicking a robot dog is bad as it exhibits vices

A2: in itself the act of kicking a robot dog foster bad habits and that in turn impacts societies

A3: Dealing with other theologies and also DEALING WITH COUNTER ARGUMENTS

Conclusion

Arg 1 - Undrstanding the scenario through virtue ethics

better intro sentence needed to summarise argument. In analysing the ethicality behind kicking a robot dog through the lens of virtue ethics, we gain an understanding of how the morality behind the action is not focused on the victim of the action but the virtues and vices exhibited by the action itself.

  • Important to quote Cockelberg here Virtue ethics fundamentally is a theology that has a focus on the character of an individual and how their intents, actions and behaviours demonstrate virtues or vices. With a regular dog, we are able to examine how negative intents to harm the dog or perhaps abusive actions towards the dog highlight malicious behaviours however when replacing the dog with its robotic counterpart, the sentience is stripped away and emotions experienced by the target become void.

Whilst scholars such as Johnson argue that since robots are incapable of comprehending suffering, it is inappropriate to extend state this a depiction of cruelty. They extend this point to the belief that even if the robot is smashed with malicious intent, the destruction of the ‘one’s property’ is harmful however has not inflicted suffering and thus can not be categorised as cruel. Despite this, it can not be denied that this action very much disagrees with the actions a virtuous person would take and highlight vicious tendencies.

  • Mario Verdicchio As such, when I claim that the act of kicking the robot is bad, I strictly take a focus on how virtues and vices are exhibited from the individual to determine the ethicality of the situation. Through the act of kicking the robot and hence mistreating the robot, one may state that the individual is exhibiting violent behaviour. Irregardless of the sentience of the target, the treatment and exhibition of the behaviour itself reveals something negative about ones character, an important aspect for virtue ethics.
  • maybe paraphrase this a bit or quote p33 of cockelberg here as the workign is very siilar.

We must then conclude that it is not the harm experienced by the target that makes violent actions unethical but the vice of violent and aggressive behaviour that makes the action morally impermissible.

need to quote cockelberg and sparrow. a lot in this section

scribbles anout thoguhts

Two major factors that contribute to virtue ethics and deciding the correctness of a decision are one’s feelings and intents behinds the action as well as analysing one’s character and how they exhibit certain virtues and vices. As such, a factor we must consider is whether the truly virtuous person would consider the act of kicking the dog to be wrong. As compared to a regular dog, the robot dog does not yet have the capacity for consciousness and to feel fear and pain, yet virtue ethics would argue that this is still the incorrect decision. The focus in this part

  • does adding context about kicking the dog matter at all or talkiing about the rekation to a regular dog?
  • does talking about feelings and intent matter in this situation?

To analyse the morality behind kicking a robot dog, let us refer to the public reaction of a Boston Dynamic’s promotion video of their robotic dog. During the video, the dog was kicked, prompting many uneasy reactions regarding the behaviour. Say that we were to replace the robotic dog with a regular one. Most individuals would argue that to kick the dog would be morally wrong. This argument typically derives from the source that the dog can comprehend feelings of pain and consciousness and despite that, the agent is choosing to kick the dog. However, when we decide to switch out the dog for its robotic counterpart, the consciousness and ability to comprehend pain is stripped yet people’s discomfort remains. Let us interpret this situation through the lens of virtue ethics. As such, we must then try to understand whether a truly virtuous individual would kick a robotic dog.

I stand to believe that a virtuous individual would determine kicking the robotic dog to be a morally wrong decision instead of morally permissible or even morally grey. An important part of virtue ethics is understanding the individuals character and how they exhibits certain vices or virtues. By kicking the robot dog, the individual is exhibiting aggressive and violent vices and hence, being exhibiting morally wrong behaviour. need to finish the paragraph - kinda dont know where i’m going

  • talk about how the inherent action is wrong from virtue ethics not because of the target but because of the vice developed → why → because virtue ethics wants us to focus on the character o the individual

can prob expand better on the final sentence and find an argument over here - what are you trying to express in this paragraph instea of hyapping

Arg 2 - Discuss Readings - need to improve this and shrink it down

perhaps moving some of these arugments to the previous paragraph if possible.

Empathy, social impact, exposure, habits and paralle behaviours Desensitize us to the curelty of actions.

An important thing to understand regarding virtue ethics is how an individual’s social environment impacts their morals and how habits, exposure and parallel behaviours lead individuals to believe certain behaviours are virtuous and vicious.

As brought up in Cockelbergh’s article, Bourdieu’s concept of habit and how our minds and bodies are shaped by our society and culture. In turn our connection with society is what shapes our empathy, habits and virtues, leading to important ethical decisions.

In the importance of habits do both Sparrow and Cockelbergh agree and explore that regular exposure to behaviours through media and regular consumption results in suggestion that these behaviours are regular and acceptable.

Studies have shown that there appears to be a subtle link with our enjoyment and exposure of media with violent and/or sexism and corresponding violent and/or sexist behaviour within individuals. Whilst the authenticity of this argument does remain to be completely determined with several scholars claiming the inverse, it can not be denied that repeated exposure to cruel behaviour can subtly dull an individuals reaction to cruelty.

  • this needs ot be done better
  • need evidence and support for the second claim - bold claim no substane.
  • e.g if we consider johnson’s argument, he rejects this claim and states it holds no substance.

As such, even if we were to say the inherent action of mistreating the robot is not morally wrong, by building up said habit, the individual is subconsciously constructing the belief that what they may do to the robot could potentially be okay to a sentient being. This as such decomposes their empathy, a critical aspect of determining morality within virtue ethics.

  • need to emphasises that building up the belief that it is okay is not alright and also the belief they can extend that to other individuals

Whilst Cockelbergh argues that habituation of cruelty and inability to critique such a vice lies in a fault of the society rather than purely the individual, fundamentally, it still stands to believe the morality of the individual has degraded and actions they have taken have moved them away from virtue.

Hence, by desensitising the self to a vice by kicking the robot dog, one is subconsciously constructing a habit in which they may extent to other sentient beings, degrading their moral character and possibly resulting in harm.

  • need a better concluding sentence

you must consider the DEBATE between cekclebergh and Sparrow - THAT IS YOU MUST CONSIDER BOTH ARGUMENTS

  • HIGHLIGHT AND LOOK AT THE ARUGMENTS THAT SPARROW BRINGS UP IN COCKELBERGHS FIRST ARTILE
  • cockelbergh basically blames society for the individuals lack of care while sparrow attack the individuals moral character

Previous argument

Maintaining our lens of virtue ethics, we can also understand how even despite positive intentions, displaying vices of violence can result in malevolent effects socially. Coeckelbergh in his article discusses how Bourdieu’s conception of habitus offers that “the social order becomes habit” and that how both mind and body are shaped by our society and culture. By learning good habits from our social interactions, we develop stronger virtues and move towards taking more virtuous and morally permissible actions. However, as such, it is also important to recognise the subtle power relations that occur within interactions and how an individual kicking a robotic dog may impact others around us. The ethicality of an action should not be restricted to simply the behaviour of the user and the vice but also the social context in which the action is performed and can influence. As __ states, exposure to similar behaviours promote risk of these habits developing in parallel situations in which the ethicality of said actions is more blatant. Coeckelbergh draws example to an individual who may mistreat and abuse a sex-robot. Even if we were to say the inherent action of mistreating the robot is not morally wrong, by mistreating the robot, the individual is subconsciously constructing the habit and belief that what they can do to the robot may possibly extend to other parallel fields. In turn, this may lead to situations in which these habits cause harm and lead to choices that are violent in an interaction with another human. As such, to spread the aggressive behaviour can also be said to be a morally wrong action, not to just one self but to others. Once again, to understand that the ideas of virtues and social environments are heavily interconnected, to promote vices of violence would show a flaw in character and thus be morally wrong.

need to be more clear with habituation - social habits and all that stuff - take a look at the article again and make sure to link things properly.

Arg 3 - Counter argument - need better counter arguments rather than just other theologies

we need a topic setnece

While Kantian ethics does not extend to animals, Kant states that to be cruel to be animals would reflect our own morality and mean that we could similarly extend our cruelty to other humans. By a similar line of argument, one may draw an analogy that we should not similarly be cruel to robots.

Johnson addresses this idea in his article, arguing that drawing analogies between animals and robots cannot be done. Because of a robot’s inability to experience pain and their depiction of suffering as a necessary precursor to cruelty, one would not be able to be cruel to robots. They would also argue that cruel behaviour towards animals and by correlation, robots does not impact an individuals interactions with other humans. Johnson delivers this through the example of individuals who slaughter animals on farms or meat packing factories.

I would reject this proposition as although an individual who slaughters animals on a farm may not necessarily be cruel to other humans, we can not deny that their regular exposure to the slaughter may result them in viewing scenarios as more ‘commonplace’ than they ought to be.

Let us take the act of beating a child with a cane at school, an action that would be completely normalised in the past and as a result, individuals would turn a blind eye to such behaviour. If we were to consider such a action in the modern day, performing the action and more so, neglecting to acknowledge, ignore and accept such behaviour would be cruel and in turn result desensitisation to such an action.

Considering a separate scenario, an individual who constantly abuses a sex robot will never experience a form of rejection from the robot as it does not hold the capacity for it. Without negative feedback, this slowly desensitises the individual and leads them to believe their actions are more tolerable. This in turn can subconsciously harm their interactions with sentient beings under the belief that these malignant actions are more acceptable.

As such, although one may argue that

NEED TO ENGAGE WITH KANTIAN ETHICS MORE:

  • duty and moral law

utilitarian arguments

By taking a utilitarian approach, one may reach a similar conclusion, the fact that perhaps kicking a dog could be done in the act to help the dog improve its capabilities in the long term. In a sense, this is similar to how a doctor may harm others intentionally for beneficial reasons and thus are not considered unethical. COunteragument needed here

Whilst an individual examining the situation with Kantian ethics may state that “animals and other empirical objects are not ends-in-themselves” and thus we are unable to treat them as rational beings, he similarly argues against the “violent and cruel treatment of animals” as this would wrong us. EXPAND MORE HERE

As such, we can extend this line of thought to robotic dogs and follow that cruel treatment of a robotic dogs would similar wrong us as rational beings and be ethically wrong. Now say we were to interpret this sitoh uation through the lens of a utilitarian. If we were to examine the kicking of the robotic dog as a means to perhaps repair it or perform tests on it for future optimisations, the utilitarian may argue that kicking the dog would be the ethical thing to do. Similar to how a surgeon may temporarily inflict harm by removing a limb to provide future benefit, the kick to the dog would provide assistance in the long term. However, it is also important to understand with utilitarianism to consider all parties included.

  • inaimate objects aren’t considered int he claculations

  • moral responsibility → rule based → property

  • instrumental value

  • must ocnsider intent

  • social impact - habit that sorta stuff

If the individual were to be acting out of the will of wishing it was an actual dog, this would be irrefutably be regarded as unvirtuous. We must consider this more however if the individual were indifferent to the action or even acting out of good-will in an attempt to hypothetically repair the dog or perform tests on it to better optimise it. Similarly to how a surgeon may remove a limb and temporarily inflict harm upon an individual to provide future benefit, one may argue that the kick to the dog would provide assistance to it in the long term. However, with virtue ethics, we also understand

to kick the dog is not necessaril the incorrect decision if you want to fix it howver when analysing it, it is not the ethically correct deicison. Sometimes it is important to recognise that the ethically correct decision does not always align the ‘correct’ deicison to do or most ‘optimal’ decision.

LOOK INTO THE COUNTER ARGUMENT ABOUT ANIMAL-ROBOT ANALOGIES AND MORAL PATIENTS AND THAT STUFF

References:

Notes

Question 3

Introduction - Summarise your arguments in one line and provide a good argument Structing the arugments:

  • the situation and the discussion - taking the frotn of virtue ethics and analysing its relevance to the stance i am taking

  • further impact of virtue ethics and more explicit details to the habitual arguments and comparisons that cockelberg brings up

  • Debates to the opposing side and other theologies (primarily something like deontology/kantian where a robot is not considered sentient)

    • utilitarian - testing kicking the dog and that stuff → in teh situation that the user in question is not percieving it as a violent action or even harm since in fact it is helpign the dog in the long run. Similar to how someone way sever a limb if it is at risk of damaging hte user int he long run, this may help the dog by performing these ‘tests’. On the other hand, we must take the alternative approach and consider exposure of this behaviour to others as not all individuals will be under the same belief → power trip.

  • Return to how different intents and behaviours shape someone good.??? - idk whats happening here icl

  • Argument 4 perhaps? Conclusion - Wrap up yoru arugments

  • good answer → give some space to considerations that motivate answer

  • You have to engage witht eh literature virtuous behaviour does depend on the culture? it is fine to mention other theologies to support your case:

  • e.g deontology and utilitiaainism - explain where exactly it sits

virtue ethics - consider the type of person you are

  • you are aware of what you are doing
  • the intent matters
    • utilitarian angle - its calm and you are just tyring to help the dog if you are trying to fix it or test it
    • you would not want to kick a regular dog right.
    • just because you aren’t a virtue ethicist doesn’t mean that you can’t be ethical.
  • If you dont break the dog or whatever
    • from an virtue ethicist - is it ethical? - they feel like it is correct - does that mean they dont have the capacity to be good?

your actions impact are just immoral immoral since cements that you could do the same thing to an actual things:

  • lessening of the virtue and improve of vice a robot dog - you cerase it from the context of a human

Reading Notes:

Article 1 - how to use virtue ehtics for thinking

“The robot does not feel pain, is not conscious and does not display other properties sufficient for moral standing”

  • ‘the only way to make sense of these moral responses and to potnetially justify them is to argue by drawing on a form of indirect moral standing’
  • ‘the robot has moral standing indriectly because of what is done to it from the human person’

Moral engagement between the treatment of robots → how framing the use of language can impac the way people tret dogs [darling 18]

Page 32 → dog only has moral standing indirecting since it derives from the moral standing of humans who ought to exercise their duties:

  • if we treat robots in inhumane ways, we risk to become inhumane ourselves Page 33: the “abuse” of robots is not bad because of the robot but simply because it is vicious and not showing virtuous character
  • damage to moral character rather than the dog

Vallor[34] defines human beings as relational beings “whose identity is formed through a network of relationships] and disuccsess care pracatices”.

Is virtue only based in the agent? → how does virtue relate to the socila environment. Social meaning between the human-robot intereaction and the dimension of virtue.

Macintyre → the virute of the person is always related to a practice:

  • virtue is embedded in a social practical environment.
  • virtue is not something that isolated moral agents have or do but something embedded in a social context.

[35] Responding to a situation such as kicking a robot or abusing a sex robot. dont limit ethics to just the relation between:

  • individual behaviour of the user towards robot
  • virtue or vice related to said user also want to figure out how both the above relate to thescoial context and the history of that behaviour and potnetial vice.
  • E.g the ‘abuse’ of a sex robot may be related to strucutral risks of abuse in regular human-human relationship in aparitcualr practice. E.g prostitution or even regular intimate relationships and how appropriate these actions are.

E.g when a child kicks a robot, that behaviour slowly becomes instilled into them as part of a practice and that may lead to ethical problems in the future.

Bourdieu’s conception of habit.:

  • concept of habitus → how the social order becomes habit - page 36 Habituation is not only about acquiring the way of thinking but a way of moving:
  • habit is performed.
  • Who or what makes us habitually move in certain ways ather than others. → idea of power
    • foucault talks about the power dimention of habituations
      • foucault talks more so about ‘disicipling technologies of the self’
      • social order affects ‘bodies and souls, thought, conduct and wya of being’
    • foucuat states there is not one choreographer who exercises power in an obvious and visible way but there are instead many subtle power reltions that people are unware of. We miss how the huma-robot relation as a power relation can impac thte wider field of social power and how it shapes us and our incorporated habits.
      • understanding the acquiristion of said virtue can be understood as habituation and entagling that with our social nature. Habituatuon as incorporation and performance is socialised. This makes it more difficult for someone to be less vicious and more virutous however not to say that social environments that support opposing habvits and irtues can unlearn this ‘viciousness’ and change.

MORAL HABITUATION - EXPOSURE TO THINGS MAKES PEOPLE BELIEVE IT IS OKAY

analysing the interaction in terms of virtue ethics and shifting to the individual and the abuser in question. how exactly hab its are formed how habits form from social interactions and how habits also lead to poor social behaviours and degradation of moral character

Article 2 - Virtue and Vice in our relationships - Sparrow

TLDR: argus that vicious acts are vicious but the opposite can not be siad about virtue. virtuous acts towrds a robot dog can’t be truly virutous. Only in the siituation in which someone mistakes a robot dog for a rela on can it be virutous

Boston dynamics video → dog is kicked to showcase its ability to stand up

  • the comments state a lot of people feeling displeasure towarsds this → there has to be a basis for this despite the fact that hte dog is not sentient and doens’t feel pain.
  • the intuition of the mistreatment is not wrong but consideration of the situation suggest that we do need to reconsideration. E.g consider the dog acted like a real dog and was able to display feeligns of fear, flinching, cowering and emitting mournful sounds. It would be hard to avoid the claim that by kicking the dog, the action is morally repreehensible. Uh second example abiut racims and sexual assualt towards robots but fundamentlaly ppl will evaluate beahviour towards robots.

Kantian ethics state that “animals don’t count and have no moral status and can’t be wronged”:

  • don’t count as rational and aren’t included in hte members of “kingodm of ends”
  • irregardles,s holds that cruelty to animals is wrong → insensitiveness to the suffering will also lead to poor bheaviour towards people.
    • originates from the empirical claim about the extent to which our behaviour towards entities that only refer to human beings/behaviours rubs off on our treatment of real human beings.
    • Similar to how claims of media/videos games/ exposure to things will also result in the behaviours that it represents and belief that these behaviours is okay.
    • Important to be self conscious with our interactions with literation, film, video game sand robots as it shapes our behaviours towards other things int he world

“what we fantasise about ifnluences our behaviour and that exporsure to media representation of violence and/or sexism increases said behaviour in people [14,15,18.19.20]”

  • MASSIVE FOCUS HERE WHEN TALKING ABOUT HOW ENVIRONMENt SHAPES US AN EXPOSURE TO PARALLEL BEHAVIOURS LEADS US TO BELIEVE TO ACTIONS BEING OKAY- PAGE 25

Kdiness with a robot in itself is not genuine kindess:

  • kind ppl will tend to feel happy when they learn of other ppl being kind and to feel the desire to help someone even when they cannot. Intuitions about virtue and vice are asymmetrical as recognises the vice but not the virtue towards robots so as a result - virtue ethics may not be a valid approach.

Precariousness of vritue:

  • asymmetry exists in the fact that they are more ways to be vicisus than virtuous.
  • unacknowlege virtue is less damaging for an individual and for thte community than unrecognised vice.
  • Judgements about character thus become more critical.
  • people are swifter to condemn vice than they are to praise virtue.
    • we judge attempted murder for instance to be nearly as bad as murder but don’t consider attempted beneficience to be almost as good as actual beneficience. The gap between failure and success is massive. sparrow states that we are a long way from knowing how to build robots that are reasonable to mistake for animals and as a result, ppl can be vicious but not really virute.
  • virtue requires practical wisdom which requires that we direct kindness towards creatures who actually benefit from it.
  • whilst sparrow argues about it being wrong to treat robots poorly but not necessarily not treat them nicely, he does not disagree with the intent that kicking the dog is bad → this is a terrible argument since this is just one perosns arugment.

for the agent to be virtuous, the agent has to have believes that represent how the world is → practical wisdom

Article 3 - Cockelberg response to sparrow

Kant has made the same argument for a regular dog → we have a duty towards it (not because it is rational) and it may lead to insensitivity to cruelty on the part of the human and thus indirect duty towards the dog. Robots do not feel anyting and kindness towards robots is not true kidness.

  • even per this acgument, kicking the robot is still morally pretehensible even if not kicing it doens tmake it virtuous

Article 4

Article 5 - Robots should not be treated like animals - deborah

both animals and robots hav the capcity to elicit response in humans - response that are caharcterised as “anthropomorphization” and “attachment”

animals are parallel with robots in the sense of how they help us.: 0 tecchnology is intelligent, dogs can be trained to do our bidding and in these ways, dogs are much like the robots we are strivcing to create

robots are not sentient however so the analogies between animals and robots fail

  • if robots ahv ethe capcaity ot suffer, they too would have to be given moral status. the problem is that they do not suffer. Althought future robots might suffer or have some state equivalent, futuritstic thinking leaves things unclear

“moral patients derive their moral status from their capacity to suffer and be harmed while moral agents derive their moral status from their capacity to act and cuase suffering and harm”

  • when agency is used as the basis for the moral status of robts analogies with animals dont work
    • this is valid for animals since they suffer. For futuristic robots, it is aruing on soemthing that could happen in the future. We could argue about a moral standing to the future and are patient-based argument but problems shown with suc an argumenet because animals acquire moral standings as moral patients, not agents.
    • animal robot analogies fail since robots dont have sentience
    • however this argument fials since while robots dont suffer and they can be hamred

both robots and animals are legal proporerty:

  • negligence of animal owners similarly apply to roboto owners
    • owner is held liable for negligent supervision of that machine

“Darling (2016) extends the Kantian argument to robots: The Kantian philosophical argument for preventing cruelty to animals is that our actions towards non- humans reflect our morality—if we treat animals in inhumane ways, we become inhumane persons. This logically extends to the treatment of robotic compan- ions. Granting them protection may reinforce behavior in ourselves that we generally regard as morally cor- rect, or at least behavior that makes our cohabitation more agreeable. It may also prevent desensitization towards actual living creatures and protect the empathy we have for each other. (p. 19)”

  • tldr: cruel behaviour towards robots mya reinforce human behaviour that is morally correct/incorrect as well as desnentizie us to cruelty when it comes to people and undemrnine empathy

  • what is at stake is the appearance of suffering rahter than suffering itself

    • experiences and relationship with trobots can impact the morality

they undrtsnad how humanodi robots have the capacity to elicit emotional response in humans form our experiences of current robots and experiences of depiction of human curelty and suffering in medi:

  • emotions triggered when suffering is depicted.

understand how if they boundary between humanoid robots and humans becomes very much indistinguishable, the act of curlety done to the robot and the human remains the same:

  • can not talk about

it is currently a deception and teh appearanceof suffering, robot designers can avodi the appearance of suffeirng in robots

johnson rejects animals and robots to be the same as humans and also rejects the argument aht aggresive behaviour towards these things implies and leads to other aggresive behaviours.

Previous argument Scribbles

Arg 1 - seems more like a discussion than to vconvince

To break down whether it is okay to kick a robot dog, we take the approach of virtue ethics to judge this. We thus need to determine whether a truly virtuous person in modern society would kick a robot dog. When considering the act of kicking a regular dog, most individuals would argue that the virtuous person would consider this act to be wrong as meaninglessly inflicting harm towards a sentient body would not be displaying a positive trait (virtue). Extending this thought, if we were to replace the dog in the scenario with a motorcycle, most people would argue that although the motorcycle is non-sentient, there is no real reason in which a virtuous person would exhibit this action. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with kicking a motorcycle, there is also nothing inherently positive about it and thus, likely would be better off not done. Fundamentally however, when we analyse virtue ethics, a major focus we must look at is the importance of ‘intent’. Taking the motorcycle example, let us assume that the motor cycle is faulty. The person in question thus kicks the motorcycle in hopes that it will fix some of the mechanical bits and get it working again. In this scenario, although crude, justifies the action slightly more as there is positive intent. If we had to replace the motorcycle with a robot dog that is currently experiencing issues, one could say that the ethical action would be to kick the dog in the attempt to repair it. On the other hand, one might feel a bit of disdain against treating an inanimate object poorly and irregardless of the intent, may decide this is morally impermissible. Let us now assume that the person in question is a mechanical engineer and they have deemed that the best way to repair the dog is to kick it as to give it a nudge. To not kick the dog is to let it permanently broken in which a better use of it would be to recycle it and we simply result with a different hypothetical. If we take a situation in which a robot dog is being developed and the best way to test the dog’s capabilities is to kick it and observe its response, one may say that the intent is to conduct research and not to harm the robot. As such, the action would be deemed ethical as to conduct research is to assist the robot’s capabilities in the future. We can thus conclude that it is crucial that the intent behind kicking the robot dog is determinant in whether it is morally permissible.

  • this actually is kinda a troll argument since “ppl felt uncomfortable when ppl kicked the dog”

Change in opinions:

  • currently okay due to lack of intellience and merely algorithm
  • what exactly is intelligence
  • in the future might not be okay → what exactly define sthe virutous person will chnage from age to age. → actually look into this, will people from all ages consider the virtuous person the same? → because what is defined as okay has definietly changed Introduce dilemma

Virtue ethics and intent

Tutorial Notes

Question 1

Tips:

  • Give reasons to reader for why you are correct
    • convince
  • Set of questions
    • Act vs Rule utilitarianism and which one would be better for CS
      • how would each motivate the guidlines and result in different guidelines
      • define and explain both briefly in argument paragraph
    • Which one do you like more and why. Provide reasons for why.
    • discuss one leadership challenge and how a specific response decides our choice
  • Remember you are workign with 2 assumptions
    • CS is a licensed profession
    • we are formulating ethical guidelines for said profession
    • Identify and acknowledge these assumptions

Referencing

  • paraphrased idea → in text (author date)
    • e.g ____ (Jones, 2024)
  • IEEE format [1] or super script 1
  • Reference list
    • in full - any accepted standard format - IEEE, havrvard, whatve, doesn’t matter

thing

  • licensed profession
  • professional guidelines
  • act vs rule utilitarisnm
  • leadersghip challenge

eeee this is kinda cring eicl:

  • How exactly do these mindsets inform a decision on how to create the law

You can take ideas from readings but you don’t need to agree with what the entire thing says but you gotta provide rationale to why you agree/disagree with things

Act utilitariansims: judge the morality of an action bassed on the immediate consequences in a specific sitatuion - basically the purest form of it Rule utiliatarisnm: judges actions based on a whether it follows a rule that generally leads to the greatest good - even if a different action produces better results - rather than performing a calculation - set a rules that when followed in the long run, will lead to the best possible outcomes

developing an understanding that society is moving more and more into a tech reliance and how lincesing becomes important as impact is larger good case study for this could be breaking DRM in polish trains

ai - ethicality 0 creating new intelligence - https://essay.utwente.nl/86726/1/Mitov_BA_BMS.pdf https://onlineethics.org/cases/ethics-and-professional-responsibility-computing

profissionally licensed:

  • self regulated
  • requiring edu /trianing/apprenticeship
  • licensed
  • autonoous
  • objective
  • pro bono work?

can i focus on cyber security or do i have to do cs as a whole do we need to list specific guidelines or is that just something that we could possibly do as an argument

2 and 3 notes

2:

  • expound rulebased kantian ethics → emanuel kant → specifically kantian
  • automated ehtics
  • good/bad
  • refer to readings 3:
  • good or bad?
  • virtue ethics
  • explicit referene to readings

Graph View

Backlinks

  • No backlinks found