jukeboxhound_backup | scifi ethics

In 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The first, definitely the first. As a human being, I'm flawed and I don't always make the best choices. But I want to be assured that it's my decisions that will dictate where my life takes me, be it for better or worse, and not someone/something else's good intentions that paved my way in life.

...The first one. Because even though #2 would maybe be better... I sort of believe that it should be up to us how we live our lives.

And maybe we do need to be saved from ourselves. (I totally agree with that.) But I believe, you know... reap what you sow, etc etc. :S

Like the others that posted I would go with our inherently flawed way. It's flaws but our flaws. Who is to say that the immortal better beings have any less flaws albiet in thier own way?
Who is to say that if we as a flawed race live in a perfect world, that it would stay perfect? Would we not overthrow them for what everyone has seeked? Freedom, knowledge, power?

I believe either way we would be in what we have now.

Though for me personally, I think I might like the second choice if not just to see what these beings are like and to trust in my cynical sense of we eventually will overthrow or die trying. If not, I at least get a taste of this utopia guided by fanatical beings. Though only interesting from the perspective of being born in the flawed world.

I wonder in that world, what we would think of ourselves here?
Rampaging barbarians? or a freedom to hope for?

Sorry for rambling and possibly infringing/being an idiot but I saw this and it struck my mind.

The first, because while things could get bad, there is also the opportunity for things to improve. And, I highly disapprove of a benevolent dictator. Or any dictator. As Patrick Henry said, " Give me liberty, or give me death." I want the freedom to chose who I'll be. I may screw it up, but it's still my choice.

I'm writing this before reading your own point of view, to avoid bias. XD

I definitely would vote for the society in which we make our own rules. Human beings are inherently independant, and I believe no matter what that if we lived in the second society, we would begin to feel stifled, and rebel as a result of this. Also, a society where you want for nothing provides no challenge, and if there is something that humans thrive on, it is challenge.

Challenge defines who we are as individuals. Without it, there are many parts of ourselves that we will never understand, and we wont learn lessons the hard way, and have terrible experiences in order to have the amazing ones. Am I making any sense?

Anyway! That's just my opinion. Definitely a flawed, challenging and changing society for me.

Humans are born to decide on their own path, not to be controlled by someone else. It's suffering, really. Once you can't be/do the things someone wants you to be/do, situations can be very frightening. I rather abandon security to keep on living with my hard earned life!

*thinks really hard*

You know, it's an easy one... and I'll always go for the same: the flawed, but beating heart/dreaming mind.

In a way, I _need_ to know that those who are responsible for our world (leaders of diff. kinds) have been fighting the same fights, been hurting the same way, exists within the same restrictions, etc.

Anything else would be horrible for me, I think. And, nothing is perfect, not in that sense. If I ever was to meet such a thing/creature, I would find it not only strange, but down right scaring.

I am flawed, but at the same time - I can learn, I can grow as a being. I can create beauty out of my own chaos; I can feel pasion and hurt. Even if humankind is killing itself, we still have all those known and unknown heroes that day by day, still make an effort.

I'll take the chaos anyday, because fighting and learning has the greater worth in the long run.

The second option will produce a knee jerk negative reaction in most people, I think...But nowhere does it say that it will be more restrictive, repressive, or that it would curtail human growth in any way. In fact, if it DID prevent humans from living and growing well in their own way, then it would no longer be in the best interests of humanity. With human interest guaranteed to be the highest priority, I'd choose the second. I'd rather have things regulated by a completely impartial entity, than leave things in the hands of a human who might decide they "don't like" me and ruin my life.

It has occurred to me that the best way to do this would be to leave human figureheads in place, and have the perfect entities run things behind the scenes, with no one the wiser....

Err...Not a conspiracy theorist, really!

There's a Franklin quote saying "those who give up liberty to gain some safety deserve neither." That's pretty much my point of view.

Most western people would choose 1.
I'm torn, because while my government may be a bit flawed and corrupt, it is not really bad.
But then a read about a new massaker in Africa or how the Chinese treat the Tibetans, and think that 2 would be the better choice.
So i would most likely choose 2, depending on how they governt everything(just as long as the government didn't administer "happy drugs").

scifi ethics

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject