but one's consciousness does not extend beyond one's self
Quantum physicists and mystics alike are debating that one, but for practical purposes of the argument we could assume you're right. Personally, I think the ethical boundary is set by deciding whether moral gains outweigh moral losses. Vehicles are involved in a substantial number of deaths - by accidents, drunk drivers, and sometimes intentionally to run someone over. The ability to move people from one place to another very quickly, maybe even to a hospital, or some important place in a contrived situation, seems to overwhelmingly outweigh those deaths.
But then what about the destruction to our global habitat as a byproduct of the use of these machines? What about the wars fought over control of their energy source? Is it worth the deaths of millions of people just so you can get to work without having to share a train with strangers? Do the lives saved by vehicles outweigh the overall loss of human life, ecosystem life, and global harmony with nature? Or does it not matter if the people who die as a result of vehicles speak a different language than you, live too far away for you to interact with meaningfully, or have a different skin color?
For example, I would not go skydiving, but other people choose to do so. They are taking a risk I choose not to take, but I do not think they are immoral for taking the risk, and I do not think an increase in the magnitude of risk alters the morality of the situation, because they are risking themselves.
Hi, devil's advocate here. This is an extremely self-centered viewpoint. People are not islands. Your example skydiver presumably has people who care about them. If they hurt themselves, they would also hurt the people they love. What about those who abuse heroin? They hurt themselves, their loved ones, and further down the ripple effect, the whole of society.
Oh, come on, it's easy. All you have to do is evaluate whether either vehicle contains a 1-percenter. The rest don't matter. Joking aside, we don't actually have to take this question seriously. What are we gonna do, teach Peter Singer how to program AI? It'll be a sad day when robots have better ethics than people. Did I say sad day? I mean, Judgment Day.
Way to miss the point completely. Any rules you program to profile race are going to come flawed with your prejudices and ignorance. Your statement seems to imply you write perfect code, which tells me you probably don't write much code at all.
Humans are shitty at guessing race. My brother is half Hawaiian, but living in Arizona not a single person could guess his race correctly. Growing up in Hawaii, a Filipino friend of mine related his experience living in Wisconsin: everyone thought he was black and called him the N-word constantly. Humans are the ones programming these racial profiling algorithms, and thus will always be shit poor at it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's Amanda Hugginkiss, way to ruin the joke.
Sounds a lot like the war on drugs to me. But terrorists demand that we be afraid, so let's give them what they want.
but one's consciousness does not extend beyond one's self
Quantum physicists and mystics alike are debating that one, but for practical purposes of the argument we could assume you're right. Personally, I think the ethical boundary is set by deciding whether moral gains outweigh moral losses. Vehicles are involved in a substantial number of deaths - by accidents, drunk drivers, and sometimes intentionally to run someone over. The ability to move people from one place to another very quickly, maybe even to a hospital, or some important place in a contrived situation, seems to overwhelmingly outweigh those deaths.
But then what about the destruction to our global habitat as a byproduct of the use of these machines? What about the wars fought over control of their energy source? Is it worth the deaths of millions of people just so you can get to work without having to share a train with strangers? Do the lives saved by vehicles outweigh the overall loss of human life, ecosystem life, and global harmony with nature? Or does it not matter if the people who die as a result of vehicles speak a different language than you, live too far away for you to interact with meaningfully, or have a different skin color?
Are you sure about that? Have you heard of Good Samaritan/Duty to Assist laws? What about suicide?
http://academic.udayton.edu/legaled/crimlaw/02-Elements/03casekGenovese.htm
http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1343&context=llr
For example, I would not go skydiving, but other people choose to do so. They are taking a risk I choose not to take, but I do not think they are immoral for taking the risk, and I do not think an increase in the magnitude of risk alters the morality of the situation, because they are risking themselves.
Hi, devil's advocate here. This is an extremely self-centered viewpoint. People are not islands. Your example skydiver presumably has people who care about them. If they hurt themselves, they would also hurt the people they love. What about those who abuse heroin? They hurt themselves, their loved ones, and further down the ripple effect, the whole of society.
Oh, come on, it's easy. All you have to do is evaluate whether either vehicle contains a 1-percenter. The rest don't matter. Joking aside, we don't actually have to take this question seriously. What are we gonna do, teach Peter Singer how to program AI? It'll be a sad day when robots have better ethics than people. Did I say sad day? I mean, Judgment Day.
Assuming you're not referring to git-flow, I GTFY: https://github.com/Nextdoor/git-change
Way to miss the point completely. Any rules you program to profile race are going to come flawed with your prejudices and ignorance. Your statement seems to imply you write perfect code, which tells me you probably don't write much code at all.
Humans are shitty at guessing race. My brother is half Hawaiian, but living in Arizona not a single person could guess his race correctly. Growing up in Hawaii, a Filipino friend of mine related his experience living in Wisconsin: everyone thought he was black and called him the N-word constantly. Humans are the ones programming these racial profiling algorithms, and thus will always be shit poor at it.