It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
"A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law."
In your opinion, what is ultimately more important: Reason or Morality?
originally posted by: TarzanBeta
You're asking someone to spend at least a minute thinking about something and then to offer a reason. Therefore, reason will be found to be the foundation of one's concern with morality.
originally posted by: intrptr
originally posted by: TarzanBeta
You're asking someone to spend at least a minute thinking about something and then to offer a reason. Therefore, reason will be found to be the foundation of one's concern with morality.
Mmmm, we reason out our actions based on whatever direction our moral compass is pointing.
I don't think I use morality in determining whether I'm going to order a hamburger or a chicken breast.
originally posted by: TREESNAKE1111
Balance .
originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Some brilliant answers so far, thanks for those participating.
Just to add: the key point of this exercise is to demonstrate to yourself that while a balanced approach is objectively best for everyone, there are important issues where you cannot equally weight reason with morality. Even if you make a decision that is 51% based on reason and 49% based on morality, you are still technically favouring one concept over the other.
This is NOT a false dichotomy because there are important issues where you WILL need to at least show more reason than morality or issues where you will need to show some more morality than reason.
originally posted by: Aristotelian1
It is a false dichotomy though. It isn't "reason or morality," because you can be reasonable about morality. Morality should be a subset of reason not a disjunctive of it. It is "reason or not reason, morality or not mortality," not "reason or morality."
originally posted by: Dark Ghost
originally posted by: Aristotelian1
It is a false dichotomy though. It isn't "reason or morality," because you can be reasonable about morality. Morality should be a subset of reason not a disjunctive of it. It is "reason or not reason, morality or not mortality," not "reason or morality."
The ONLY, and I really do mean only, occasion where a genuine dichotomy can exist is if we compare a perfect existence against an imperfect existence. (By existence, I mean everything that has, can and does exist). There is no possible grey area. As soon as a 100% perfect system deviates negatively, no matter how small the change, it becomes an imperfect system.
At present, every time we speak about concepts such as Reason or Morality, we do so within a particular framework of knowledge that we are aware of. This does not confirm that there is nothing beyond our comprehension, but it does mean we are limited by what we can presently know. Keeping that in mind, within the human framework of knowledge on planet Earth it is more reasonable to assume planet Earth is an imperfect existence than it is a perfect existence.
Reason is a word that is inherently beneficial in an imperfect existence. Morality is a word that is "inherently" neutral in an imperfect existence. Both words are detrimental in a perfect existence.
So yes, Reason vs. Morality is not an "objectively" genuine dichotomy if you consider everything we might not know, but considering everything we do currently know, it is a very real dichotomy within the human framework of knowledge.
Do you agree?