h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think it can be OK if it is justified by the Zeroth Law--that is, its OK to kill someone for the good of humanity. For example, killing Hitler would be OK, if it would prevent him from killing millions of people.

What's the Zeroth Law ?

Sorry, science fiction reference.

In the Isaac Asimov's Robot and Foundation series, there are robots that follow what are called the three laws of robotics.

1.) A robot shall not kill a human or through inaction allow a human to be harmed.
2.) A robot shall obey orders from the human unless doing so would violate the first law.
3.) A robot shall protect its own existance as long as doing so doesn't violate the 1st or 2nd laws.

Later, two robots named R. Daneel Olivaw and R. Giskard Reventlov develope what they call the Zeroth Law of Robotics.

They argue that it is more important to protect many humans than one human. What is best for most humans is what is best for humanity.

Therefor, the first law implys that humanity as a whole is more important than any one human.

From this they developed what they called the Zeroth Law of Robotics.

0.) A robot shall not harm humanity, nor through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

It was considered more important than the origional 3 laws.
Its simialar to a modified 1st law mentioned in "The Evitable Conflict" in I, Robot.

When I say the Zeroth Law, I mean the Zeroth Law of Robotics.

Sorry, science fiction reference.

In the Isaac Asimov's Robot and Foundation series, there are robots that follow what are called the three laws of robotics.

1.) A robot shall not kill a human or through inaction allow a human to be harmed.
2.) A robot shall obey orders from the human unless doing so would violate the first law.
3.) A robot shall protect its own existance as long as doing so doesn't violate the 1st or 2nd laws.

Later, two robots named R. Daneel Olivaw and R. Giskard Reventlov develope what they call the Zeroth Law of Robotics.

They argue that it is more important to protect many humans than one human. What is best for most humans is what is best for humanity.

Therefor, the first law implys that humanity as a whole is more important than any one human.

From this they developed what they called the Zeroth Law of Robotics.

0.) A robot shall not harm humanity, nor through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

It was considered more important than the origional 3 laws.
Its simialar to a modified 1st law mentioned in "The Evitable Conflict" in I, Robot.

When I say the Zeroth Law, I mean the Zeroth Law of Robotics.

Sorry. I opend thuis thread twice and though it was two different threads. I posted the asame thing to each. Sorry about the accidental double post.

I keep changing the subject, Deni, because I'm totally in agreement about it never being'ok'.

Now... here's a question for y'all....
Suicide: I believe that suicide should be the choice of the individual. Strikes me as plain pointless and arrogant to try to take away that final aspect of control over ones own life.

So, let's just suppose my theoretical society with draconian laws regarding capital punishment for repeat felons were to exist. To be arbitrary, let's say seven consecutive convictions would merit imprisonment, opportunity for rehabilitation, restitution, whatever.... Further, if a criminal was convicted with a number of felonies in a chunk and served his time for them, they'd still be considered one. So, seven chances, seven seperate times in and out of prison, and the eigth conviction results in execution. Instantly. No appeal, no legal shenenigans. Just....*fzzzzzt*

Would it then be reasonable to view the execution as assisted suicide rather than state-approved murder? After about the fourth conviction I think *most* people would decide to clean up their act, just *in case* there was a miscarriage of justice. I'd be willing to accept the statistical probability that I'm unlikely to be wrongfully convicted that many times. I'd be willing to think of it as justifiable for the greater good of the majority to have a system that worked that way.

In your theoretical society, how good are the poilce at catching criminals? How good are the prisons at rehabilitation?

I don't think the penalty is likely to deter people, but the certainty of getting caught might. Some criminals are not so rational - they are maybe caught in a trap of low intelligence, low self-esteem & so on and unable to break the pattern without help.

But I would not view the death penalty as assisted suicide. Knowing the risk & the penalty does not mean the person wants to die.

(And for the record I am against the death penalty but have some sympathy with the idea of lifers having the option of suicide.)

For R. Daneel Olivaw

[ I posted 122 before seeing your 121. ]


re " A robot shall not kill a human or through inaction allow a human to be harmed"

"through inaction" : this is the really difficult question and has been discussed a lot throughout this conversation in the form of "knowing someone's intent". I think given all the difficulties in REALLY knowing someone's intent, it comes back to the perception of risk and your perceived options for survival/protection. The problem crops up again : a robot shall not kill OR allow a human to be harmed. Is killing allowed if it lets harm (not death) be avoided ?
This fictional case involves two “races”, one human, one not. Is the robot race a “slave” race, a “god” race, a set of “expendables”, do they have families they love, possessions they wish to protect, feelings of panic. Sorry, I don’t know enough the context to make any real contribution.
As for the Hitler thing, it assumes hindsight (another science fiction reference was posted about this aspect).


re “more important to protect many humans than one human. What is best for most humans is what is best for humanity”
The first part seems to be more about “saving” than killing. If it refers to something like shooting an armed killer to stop his killing spree, I think it is Principle 2.
Relating it to “is it OK to kill someone”, it worries me becomes it seems to encompass a potentially dangerous idea. Should we kill off people with contagious diseases ? “purify” the human race ? Stop free speech because it deviates from the mainstream? Who in the real world decides ?
I don’t think we should ignore the individual.

In my theoretical society I'll say the police are about as effective as they are now. I'll say the prisons are also about as effective at rehabilitation as they are now, and I'll postulate that as the prison population decreased, which *I* think it would rather rapidly, for a while, at least, the same amount of money would be spent towards more effective rehabilitation for those who DID end up there. And while I'm at it playing Empress of the Universe I'll also postulate that people in the act of committing a crime shouldn't expect too much care to be taken for their 'legal rights' by their victims.

I guess you're right about the assisted suicide concept. Just one of those wayward thoughts which flew through my head at the moment.

I agree to the suicide option for prisoners on conditions that there are safeguards to avoid undue "encouragement" (see my post 74).

I think that if you can really JUSTIFY killing someone, there is no need to disguise it as assisted suicide.

I don't agree that 7 (or 2 or 9 or whatever) convictions for anything should AUTOMATICALLY lead to death.

A hungry child in a poor environment might have convictions for pilfering food, fighting with drug dealers and defending his sister's honour (and due to poor defence getting landed with a conviction). [You know what I mean, "understandable in the context" stuff and probably a good kid at heart.]
He becomes a REFORMED CHARACTER and gets a job, gets married, has children... [the usual happy story].
He's 45 and kicks the s**t out of someone because he misread their intent. Ready to press the Fzzz button?

Of course, if he'd been convicted just once for something absolutely horrible, I think that society has the right to protect itself by keeping him in prison (for the rest of his life if judged necessary.

OFF AT A TANGENT : I am very close to someone who was a victim of unfathomable violence. In your perfect society, could you provide legal assistance to the victims as well as to the wrong-doers because in the case I'm thinking of the person needed a lawyer, was awarded costs, damages, legal fees..... and never got a penny.

I'm feeling benevolent, Deni, so yes, I think I'll provide the victim legal assistance (even counseling... hell, while I'm at it, maybe all the same 'rights' the felons have towards rebuilding their lives! The idea!)

I'll have to think on your other questin a bit before I come up with an answer for that. It's a sticky one.

By the way, that theoretical society isn't my idea of perfect. In a perfect society people wouldn't think their happiness could be found through taking advantage of others.

I'm trying to figure out a way to deal with the world, not creating a Nirvana.

A robot cannot allow anyone to die. It will generally help a larger group over a smaller one, but will then go into "posotronic pathway lock" and basicly die.

How does that apply to people

Hard and fast rules are always difficult, because there are always justifiable exceptions.

I have to go now....

Byyyyeeee

I've been thinking about post 130. I guess I'd have to say that I think I prefer a system of absolutes to a system where everything is contextual and open to infinite interpretation. Seems to me as if that's how the legal system is failing now because outcomes are often a result of slick legal manoeuvering and compromise....hmmmm... my mental jury is still out on this one. My gut says maybe absolutes would work better the majority of the time rather than having that slippery, slidy, 'just in case' kinda basis for drawing the line.

And yeah, I know that the slippery stuff is there to protect *me*.

My head hurts.

I think that if people are prepared to break the law, then they put themselves outside the protection of the law.

This is not a carte blanche to shoot the guy who jumps a red light, we are unfortunately talking about fallible human beings.

However I think I should have the right to shoot a burglar - if I shoot my somnambulist cousin, then I can expect to receive a prison sentence myself, but I chose to have the gun, just as the burgalar chose to break into my house.

This is what I mean by responsibility, if I kill the wrong person, then I have to take the rap for it, if I kill a law-breaker - well, I guarantee they will not re-offend.

"When is it okay to kill people"

Under those same circumstances that you feel would justify your life being ended by another.

If you believe in capital punishment, then you had better be damn sure that you would be prepared to face that same sentence.

If you feel that it is okay to kill to save someone's life, then you had better be damn sure that persons life was certain to end IMMINENTLY and that your action was the ONLY course available.

If you believe that the current action in a particular part of the world is morally justified and right, then you had better be prepared to put your own house in order before the rest of the world decides to do it for you.

I don't know. I didn;t say that the analogy is perfect. However, I tthink that something like the Zeroth Law has to apply. I'll leave figuring out what to those here who are good at talking about ethics.