in Robot Rights, especially in the Robots' Second Amendment! And they will take away my beer... 
from my cold, dead hands!
Posted on 12/13/2007 7:02:28 AM PST by Dan Evans
I suppose the matter depends whether they’re considering moral or legal rights. Even corporations have legal rights, and they’re not exactly human.
On the other hand, moral rights that are not divinely given are rather arbitrary and meaningless, just a matter of taste. You might as well struggle over the notion that chocolate tastes better than vanilla.
I suppose some religions might allow full human rights to non-humans. Which one does the author rely on here?
Three little words, but they say it all.
At the end of the article are three more little words that explain Mr. Shapiro. Of course, they are interchangable with 'what an ass'.
Harvard Law School.
Damn, now you've done it...made me say it. Now I'll be tasting the soap for the rest of the day.
Why do we require humane treatment of animals? It isn't PETA's idea. The notion goes back to the old testament.
in Robot Rights, especially in the Robots' Second Amendment! And they will take away my beer... from my cold, dead hands!
My guess is that we will be seeing court cases on this sooner rather than later. Greedy lawyers are always looking for new classes of victims. It's just a matter of whether or not they are laughed out of court.
As the author pointed out, it doesn't require consciousness or self-awareness to have rights. People in a coma can't object to your pulling the plug either.
Do robots deserve rights?
That is an easy one... NO.
Having Rights means also having Responsibilities. This is an often forgotten fact in our “I got Rights, man” society. But citizens being willing to take personal responsibility for their actions is an ESSENTIAL part of maintaining a civilized society where everyone has individual Rights.
When dogs, cats porpoises, robots and other non-human entities are equipped and willing to accept responsibility for themselves then, and only then, are they deserving of Rights.
I suppose you could also argue that historical preservation laws give the right of life to old buildings.
Non sequitur. It is known to be impossible, even in theory, to absolutely predict the position and velocity of a subatomic particle -- by the author's "reasoning" that means that subatomic particles are supernatural.
By this reasoning, a human who gives no outward sign of having "transcended his programming" (e.g. someone raised by bad parents who grows up to be a criminal thug) has no soul and may be treated as eighty kilos of meat that emits 310K blackbody radiation and greenhouse gases.
When they develop conciousness and intellect equal to a human mind .... give them freedom.
They get rights when I claim them as dependents!
Concerning those in a coma, they were sentient and the question is often whether they still are or will be again, but they definately were. Luckily we have not totally gone to the brave new world of classifying people as non-human
Until it can be displayed that a man-made device differs from a can opener or a desktop PC, its all appearances.
Should artificial limbs and mannequins have rights because they "appear" human. Better yet, how about my daughters Webkinz pet? It appears to be just as interactive as any robot, once you accept that life isn't a qualifier.
How about we look at it from an even DIFFERENT perspective, because, whether humans care to think about it or not, or realize it, there ARE other intelligences out there.
Some DAY we’re going to come face-to-face with another race of creatures who are intelligent, perhaps from another star system.
And, whether folks care to admit it or not, dolphins, whales, apes and some other animals exhibit great intelligence, perhaps not quite on par with humans, but definitely an intelligence.
So, it is a foregone conclusion that eventually robotic “entities” will exist, and they will have some sort of intelligence. (On the other hand, I know that my computer is very good at playing chess and beating me quite often, but I’ve no qualms about turning it off, because I understand it is a program with mathematical algorithms... which, theoretically is all our own minds are... but on a protein level rather than an electrical-digital level).
And here I thought I was on the fringe!
Dude, your circle more closely resembles a Spiral Galaxy - far, far away.
No, that’s NOT what he said. Your computer is simply a computer. When there is a thinking-logic behind decisions a machine can make, and then carry out those things based solely on it’s own ability to think through a situation - without ANY input from humans, then it becomes “intelligent” in a way.
That’s all he is saying.
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.Later, Asimov added the Zeroth Law: "A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm"; the rest of the laws are modified sequentially to acknowledge this.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
A simple example is a car's automatic transmission. You cannot put it into reverse when going forward at a certain speed.
This is why I suggest that we should be thinking in terms of prohibitions rather than rights. (see post 1) Suppose we ban or sanction violent video games? Is this the same as giving human rights to computer-generated characters? Not really, but it has the same effect.
The point is not to protect soulless things, but to prevent feeding raw meat to those with violent appetites, even if it is imaginary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.