Re: Future Technologies of Death
Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker@mercury.colossus.net)
Tue, 30 Dec 1997 17:40:50 -0800 (PST)
> >Yes, some kind of "responsibility Turing test" might be needed. Maybe
> >it could consist of several scenarios the requester is confronted
> >with, and its actions are studied, especially when asked to predict or
> >extend the scenario. For example, the child might be asked "How will
> >you pay for food and rent if we make you an adult?".
>
> I like the idea, but it would have to be modified. This test
> measures whether one should be extended a 'privilege', not whether an
> entity should be extended a 'right'. The two terms tend to get used
> interchangeably when in fact they represent two different concepts.
> The conferrence of adult status through artifical means is a
> privilege, not a right, although the conferrence of it may have a
> basis in some rights, such as the right to self-determination or the
> right to free passage. (Normal growth into adulthood is not
> considered a right, although some activists are pushing for the
> recognition of exercise of reproductive functions as a right.)
Yes, the two concepts are often confused, but in this case I think
the test is appropriate, because it is not testing whether or not
the right exists--it either does or doesn't, by virtue of the nature
of the thing exercising it--but whether we, the testers, will extend
the privilege of /recognizing/ that right and engaging in contracts
with the appellant.
The test is for our benefit, not his. It tells us whether or not we
have been enslaving him, and whether it might be more profitable for
us to recognize him as free, because free men produce more than slaves.
--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC