Thread

1. vintermann · 1791108802 · focus · HN ↗

   [dead]

   1. hardbass · 1791115884 · focus · HN ↗

      What is idolatry? How is this idolatry?

      1. vintermann · 1791118681 · focus · HN ↗

         To assert something you came up with, something man-made, should be treated as if it was a person.

         1. hardbass · 1791118994 · focus · HN ↗

            Why not just say that instead of inventing new meanings for existing words?

            We make kids, kids grow up to be persons. If you feel at some part of the process something inexplicable happened that is not explainable by natural sciences and physical processes, you may mention so. Otherwise, how can you be sure another physical process that exhibits so many traits of consciousness and person cannot have personhood.

            If you think something man made can never be treated as a person that's even more absurd, do you think we could for instance never build up a human molecule by molecule?

            1. vintermann · 1791122419 · focus · HN ↗

               That is the existing definition of that word. You probably just didn't pay attention.

               In some historical cultures, they did assert that a child is just something their parents (or more commonly just their father) came up with, and consequently they could use or dispose of as they pleased

               But our moral traditions, several thousand years old, reject that idea, and distinguishing giving birth to something from designing it. (Did you never wonder what all that history with Arianism was about? Maybe you just assumed they argued about something which made no sense just because they were religious?)

               You're just acting in accordance with the program already in you in procreating, it's not fully your own choice, and thus your child is on the same level as you.

               > If you think something man made can

               It was never about "can". It's about "should". And trying to wrap yourself in the white coat of science and rationality still won't let you derive a "should" without a "should" as input.

               But now it's your time to give answers. As I said, giving personhood to our creations would obviously make a joke out of utilitarianism (and also any other moral philosophy, for that matter). So why exactly should we entertain your idea that we should? It undermines itself.

               1. hardbass · 1791122611 · focus · HN ↗

                  I am not the one saying we should mistreat potentially conscious beings. I am open to opening up basic dignity to other beings should they be found conscious.

                  >It was never about "can". It's about "should". And trying to wrap yourself in the white coat of science and rationality still won't let you derive a "should" without a "should" as input.

                  I am using morality, if I didn't use morality why would I care if potentially conscious beings are being mistreated? What do you want to say? You are saying we should never grant personhood to any entity even if the entity is proven to have consciousness? Why are you lecturing me on morality then?

                  In what way did you mean this is related to utilitarianism, I am not sure I follow. You should be more clear what you meant there.

                  1. vintermann · 1791123570 · focus · HN ↗

                     You can never prove something conscious. That is a category error. If your morality depends on determining what's conscious or not, it's broken.

                     I, and the rest of humanity historically, don't have that problem because we don't derive moral value from capabilities, but from purpose. When we say things like "humans have equal value and dignity", we say that a humans purpose is not subordinate to any other human's purpose. When we say things like "there is just one God", we assert that whatever a certain human's purpose is, it's not in conflict with other humans' purposes. This is very basic, you should have understood this a long time ago. I'm not going to explain further since it appears someone is flagging my posts.

                     1. hardbass · 1791127737 · focus · HN ↗

                        The concept of god is a big muddle and its best to stay away from concepts which some people insist "truly exists" but we have no evidence of. No explanation or theory of any value is affected by the concept of God being true or not. In my morality, humans don't have worth because of their utility or sense of purpose but everyone has a basic intrinsic worth due to being a conscious being or a human or whatever you wish to call it.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.