scifi ethics
Jan. 12th, 2010 10:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jukeboxhound_backupIn my scifi class we were discussing something for which I'd be interested in hearing other opinions. You have a choice of two societies:
1. One society is the one we have now - human, flawed but changeable, subjective but constantly evolving.
2. The second society is one in which the government is composed of immortal beings (say true A.I.) that are superior to humans in every way, including morality; and in this society you could be guaranteed that these beings would be, and remain, completely benevolent and with human interests as their greatest priority.
Which would you choose?
This seems to me a classic example of freedom versus security - you get greater security and fewer freedoms, but less security would give you greater freedom. Personally, I would rather fight tooth and nail in a violent society to maintain my individuality than to be controlled by gentle masters. The mere thought gives me a viscerally furious reaction, and yet several people in my course, including the professor, would choose the second society. It should be noted that when we don't have to fight for anything, want for anything...then what is there to live for? I think it was in one of Kropotkin's papers that I read his observation that people don't value happiness unless they've suffered for it; it's the idea that earning something makes us value that thing even more. While I would question the severity of that suffering, I nevertheless know that on a personal level I really do value something all the more when I've had to work for it, particularly when done on my own merits.
1. One society is the one we have now - human, flawed but changeable, subjective but constantly evolving.
2. The second society is one in which the government is composed of immortal beings (say true A.I.) that are superior to humans in every way, including morality; and in this society you could be guaranteed that these beings would be, and remain, completely benevolent and with human interests as their greatest priority.
Which would you choose?
This seems to me a classic example of freedom versus security - you get greater security and fewer freedoms, but less security would give you greater freedom. Personally, I would rather fight tooth and nail in a violent society to maintain my individuality than to be controlled by gentle masters. The mere thought gives me a viscerally furious reaction, and yet several people in my course, including the professor, would choose the second society. It should be noted that when we don't have to fight for anything, want for anything...then what is there to live for? I think it was in one of Kropotkin's papers that I read his observation that people don't value happiness unless they've suffered for it; it's the idea that earning something makes us value that thing even more. While I would question the severity of that suffering, I nevertheless know that on a personal level I really do value something all the more when I've had to work for it, particularly when done on my own merits.
