PloverWing
Episcopalian
- May 5, 2012
- 5,229
- 6,221
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
We might need to discuss what "natural" means here, but, yes, this sounds close to what I'm saying.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I agree that our actions have an objective ethical component. Our actions can advance or hinder the natural values of other people in an objectively apparent way. Is that what you mean?
All moral positions are relative to the circumstances. So it might be morally good for Alice to kill Bob. But wrong for Ted to kill Carol (points awarded for the references).
It's very hard to construct a rule-based system that accurately captures human morality. I remember attending a talk by an AI researcher some years ago in which the speaker talked about the difficulty of encoding morality into an algorithm that could be carried out by a computer.
It's an interesting hypothetical. And it may become real in the short-term. However, I think in the long term all vehicles will be AI. Given much faster reaction times, I'll bet no such decision would arise since I bet no such situation would arise. The short-term is a problem since NOT all cars will be AI and the AI needs to anticipate fallible, slow human decisions.Will a Catholic for example ask that her car should be set up to sacrifice herself rather than a random group? Does the hypothetical answer given to the original problem undergo a subtle realignment when it comes to how you want your Suzuki to operate?
Unlikely to occur as such with autonomous vehicles. The trolley problem assumes that the operator of the trolley has no effect on the actions of the potential targets, rather than acting in concert with them.We will very soon indeed reach a point when someone will actually have to programe a solution to the trolley problem into your car's AI. S
It's an interesting hypothetical. And it may become real in the short-term. However, I think in the long term all vehicles will be AI. Given much faster reaction times, I'll bet no such decision would arise since I bet no such situation would arise. The short-term is a problem since NOT all cars will be AI and the AI needs to anticipate fallible, slow human decisions.
Yes. I understand that. I am a software engineer. But if AI never enters a crosswalk without sensing pedestrians, if an AI never crosses center line, if an AI senses jaywalking pedestrians, and if every other vehicle on the road is coded to the same standards...etc., then the situation where a choice between saving the one or saving the many will never arise. (Never is a long time, but I'm expressing an ideal.) Too, if one vehicle does its best to save its passengers and the other vehicle does its best to save its passengers, it is likely they will make (can be programmed to) mutually beneficial decisions.His hypothetical is presupposing AI. You have to program the AI to make such decisions. AI isn't magic. It doesn't solve any moral problem in itself. Faster reaction times don't solve moral problems.
(Ideas surrounding AI constitute an enormous bulk of the superstition present in the scientific community)
The real risk is human drivers forcing AI into a bad state.
And I don't think it will be as dumb as we assume. Nor the risks of a tough decision as high as we assume. At minimum, I think it'll do a heck of a lot better than human drivers.I'm assuming that you'd be able to turn it off and hoon about as the mood takes you. And if a kangaroo hops out in front of you when you're doing 80kph (and the limit is 100kph), does it swerve and hit a tree or hit the 'roo and bounce into oncoming traffic?
I don't think it's going to be as smart as we assume.
In other words, if you can code to detect a condition where such a decision is necessary, you can probably code to avoid it. As such, there is no moral decision to make.
and if every other vehicle on the road is coded to the same standards.
Sacred vs Secular – The Moral Wars
If we go back as little as 100 years, Christianity and secular Western opinion would have, more or less, publicly agreed on a set of moral values or rules.
What we have observed in America, is no different than the cultural breakdowns throughout History.
Destruction of a society begins with the breakdown of morality.
The Bible shows us this in the Old Testament, with Jew and Gentile alike..
A old Preacher once said about America ( If things do not get any better God will have to apologize to Sodom, and Gomorrah)
I do see the entire World having a moral breakdown in the past 50 years though not just America.
The Sexual aspect has been in cycles of history, the roaring 20s were a time of world wide open sexuality.
In my lifetime I’ve seen a gradual separation of sacred and secular opinion on a number of major issues usually - but not always - related to sexual behaviour. This moral rupture appears to be ongoing. In trying to list the various areas of sacred/secular conflict I ended up dividing the list into three groups:
Major Conflicts
Areas where Christian doctrine and the opinions of Christians more or less agree and are in opposition to a secular majority. These are the ongoing hard-fought battles where the split is basically along sacred/secular lines.
Lesser Conflicts
Areas where Christian opinion and doctrine is mixed. While many Christians accept the secular view there is still a significant and vocal Christian opposition based on doctrinal arguments. Outside of the US many of these would qualify as ‘Lost Causes’.
Lost Causes?
The true is/oughts. Concepts which may have Christian doctrinal disagreement but have essentially lost the battle. Quietly accepted by most Westernised Christians.
The list:
Major Conflicts
· Abortion
· Assisted dying
· Same sex marriage
· Gender transition – particularly in younger people
Lesser Conflicts
· Evolution
· Age of the Earth/Universe
· Biblical literalism e.g.
· Acceptance of non-stereotypical gender behaviouro Genesis
o Noah’s flood
o The Tower of Babel
Lost Causes?
· Sexual activity outside of marriage
· Acceptance of homosexuality
· Female equality
· Contraception
- Marriage like relationships" (aka 'shacking up')
- Children out of wedlock" (single or partnered)
- Divorce
Is this list a reasonably summary of sacred/secular battle lines? What have I missed?
I see the secular view as winning on all fronts. Am I wrong?
This thread is not about who ‘ought’ to win but who, in real terms, is winning the battle for public acceptance.
OB
Edit: Red text = later additions
What we have observed in America, is no different than the cultural breakdowns throughout History.
Destruction of a society begins with the breakdown of morality.
The Bible shows us this in the Old Testament, with Jew and Gentile alike..
A old Preacher once said about America ( If things do not get any better God will have to apologize to Sodom, and Gomorrah)
I do see the entire World having a moral breakdown in the past 50 years though not just America.
The Sexual aspect has been in cycles of history, the roaring 20s were a time of world wide open sexuality.
It is the time a society goes toward the occult, and murders their Children, that is a Canary in a coal mine for the fall of a civilization.
At this point People become reprobate in their lust for blood and power..
Genocide, war, and a disregard for all things of God is a form of mass hysteria, that has also repeated throughout history..
Today is one of those times in the history of the World, will it be the last?
I hope so.
Not sure. I had a pedestrian run out from between parked cars right in front of me once. An AI would have applied the brakes sooner, but it cannot overcome the physics of best case braking distances. So does it add a swerve as well as braking? How does it evaluate the downsides of the swerve and balance those against the value of the ped?.... (or do we require pedestrians to wear transmitters such that the AI can "see" them through a parked van so we eliminate that unknown?)Yes. I understand that. I am a software engineer. But if AI never enters a crosswalk without sensing pedestrians, if an AI never crosses center line, if an AI senses jaywalking pedestrians, and if every other vehicle on the road is coded to the same standards...etc., then the situation where a choice between saving the one or saving the many will never arise. (Never is a long time, but I'm expressing an ideal.) Too, if one vehicle does its best to save its passengers and the other vehicle does its best to save its passengers, it is likely they will make (can be programmed to) mutually beneficial decisions.
In other words, if you can code to detect a condition where such a decision is necessary, you can probably code to avoid it. As such, there is no moral decision to make.....
Y
We'll never agree. I see much of this as a maturation of morality. While there are a couple of items in there which could be argued on the grounds of harmfulness, in general these items are only immoral based on Divine Command Theory. They are wrong because they are defined as wrong by the Bible/God. They are not intrinsically harmful. This is why they are losing the battle.
No, you are not wrong. The secular Left is winning the battle on all these fronts, with the common thread being mostly a direct and deliberate attack against the traditional family and Christian morals. These are incompatible with Socialist doctrine.Sacred vs Secular – The Moral Wars
If we go back as little as 100 years, Christianity and secular Western opinion would have, more or less, publicly agreed on a set of moral values or rules.
In my lifetime I’ve seen a gradual separation of sacred and secular opinion on a number of major issues usually - but not always - related to sexual behaviour. This moral rupture appears to be ongoing. In trying to list the various areas of sacred/secular conflict I ended up dividing the list into three groups:
Major Conflicts
Areas where Christian doctrine and the opinions of Christians more or less agree and are in opposition to a secular majority. These are the ongoing hard-fought battles where the split is basically along sacred/secular lines.
Lesser Conflicts
Areas where Christian opinion and doctrine is mixed. While many Christians accept the secular view there is still a significant and vocal Christian opposition based on doctrinal arguments. Outside of the US many of these would qualify as ‘Lost Causes’.
Lost Causes?
The true is/oughts. Concepts which may have Christian doctrinal disagreement but have essentially lost the battle. Quietly accepted by most Westernised Christians.
The list:
Major Conflicts
· Abortion
· Assisted dying
· Same sex marriage
· Gender transition – particularly in younger people
Lesser Conflicts
· Evolution
· Age of the Earth/Universe
· Biblical literalism e.g.
· Acceptance of non-stereotypical gender behaviouro Genesis
o Noah’s flood
o The Tower of Babel
Lost Causes?
· Sexual activity outside of marriage
· Acceptance of homosexuality
· Female equality
· Contraception
- Marriage like relationships" (aka 'shacking up')
- Children out of wedlock" (single or partnered)
- Divorce
Is this list a reasonably summary of sacred/secular battle lines? What have I missed?
I see the secular view as winning on all fronts. Am I wrong?
This thread is not about who ‘ought’ to win but who, in real terms, is winning the battle for public acceptance.
OB
Edit: Red text = later additions
Behavior is controlled through beliefs.
They found that a critical and successful way to influence beliefs is through "the group."
No, you are not wrong. The secular Left is winning the battle on all these fronts, with the common thread being mostly a direct and deliberate attack against the traditional family and Christian morals. These are incompatible with Socialist doctrine.
The significance, for me, in the question is your use of the phrase "public acceptance." It is this very motivation that prompted a generation of social behaviorists, academia and political scientists to answer the question, 'how to influence public opinion for the engineering of consent.' At the time stated by yourself, this topic was studied and debated among these minds that sought means and methods to influence and change the beliefs held by the mass.
Lippman, Galbraith, Carnegie, Spooner, etc. They were tasked with the goal of finding means to control human behavior. Behavior is controlled through beliefs.
They found that a critical and successful way to influence beliefs is through "the group." "The mass-man is prone to follow the herd." - Santiago y Gasset. An explosion of "group activities" started in the 1930s and peaked in the 50s. Within the context of all these groups was the underlying design and purpose of establishing Leftist ideology.
It was during these decades that the radio and TV were instrumental in "creating public opinion."
However, the place most vital and necessary to a successful indoctrination was by slowly establishing poisonous doctrine in school curriculum.
Today, social media is "group-think" in macrocosm.
With these weapons, the secular leaves nothing sacred.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?