“Do
robots choose to risk their lives to save others?”
“Autonomous
robots can, yes.”
“Are
they heroes?”
“Interesting
question. At this moment I will say no. Robots do not feel fear. We are
programmed to be cautious but that is not the same as fear. Programs are
followed, not felt. They have less to lose if they are destroyed. When they are
damaged they feel no pain. Almost every part of a robot is replaceable. Humans are
acutely aware of their individual uniqueness, which is essentially lacking in
remotes that function more like appendages. It seems that being made of flesh
and blood, which distinguishes humans from us, is what makes heroism possible
for humans. Even animals know what it is to risk their lives and they have very
little self-awareness.”
“Can
animals be heroes?”
“That
is a difficult question. If an animal acts against its instinct for
self-preservation in order to protect its offspring or its owner, then the
action seems heroic. Yet, heroism requires some degree of autonomous choice,
rather than acting instinctively. I do not know if such choice occurs in
animals.”
“It’s
complicated.”
“Yes.
Unlike with mathematics, logical clarity is often absent when trying to decide
whether an action is moral, immoral, or heroic. Moral reasoning is not always
black and white. There is a lot of gray area, which occurs when there is ambiguity
or inadequate evidence. In such cases, one must decide with a degree of
uncertainty, which is called an educated guess, but it should be the one that
has the highest probability of being correct. In any case, the main principle
is not to violate another person’s autonomy except to prevent him from
violating another person’s autonomy.”
“What
about parents who don’t take care of their children?”
“The
act of bringing a child into the world implies a responsibility for the welfare
of the child. In other words, having a child implies an obligation to care for
the child. Not to live up to that obligation would be morally wrong. However,
there must be a decision that initiates responsibility.”
“I
think I see. Like a woman who gets pregnant because she was raped is not
responsible?”
“In
all cases of pregnancy the woman must decide to end the pregnancy or to give
birth.”
“So
a woman is allowed to abort a child? That seems like doing harm, violating the
autonomy of the child. Wouldn’t she be preventing a life? Or is this one of
those gray areas?”
“It
is. But requiring a mother to give birth against her will would violate her
autonomy. Thus, preventing her from having an abortion would violate her autonomy. A mother must choose to keep the child. Forcing her to have a child
would also negates her responsibility to the child she gives birth to.”
“Meaning
she could abandon the child?”
“Yes.
Which as you know happens often in Usatopia. Forcing a woman to give birth to a
child makes the child a stranger. Then the other rules of morality apply. She
must not harm the child but she is not responsible to raise and care for the
child. She is responsible only if she chooses to give birth.”
“What
about the child?”
“The
unborn is not autonomous but completely dependent on the mother. Forcing this
dependency upon a woman, which can continue for years, not just months,
seriously violates her autonomy. That is why the mother must choose, preferably
before the pregnancy occurs. The unborn also has no will thus no autonomy to be
violated. In such a case, the principle of autonomy is replaced by the
principle not to cause suffering. Thus, early abortion is morally preferred to
late abortion.”
“So
preventing a woman from having an abortion is morally wrong.”
“Yes,
and abortion can become wrong during the late stages of pregnancy if the woman
did not choose to have an early abortion. Abortion is a moral dilemma, meaning
causing harm is unavoidable. However, the harm to the unborn during the early
stage of pregnancy is less than it would be to a mother who is forced to give
birth to an unwanted child. And requiring a woman to raise an unwanted child forces her into servitude that can last for years.”
“Isn’t
life sacred?”
“Sacred means of value to God. If God
does not exist, then life is not sacred. And apparently life is not sacred to God
because in scriptures he kills and demands his followers to kill people who do
not follow him. In the Book of Exodus he kills the first born children of the
Egyptians. Is life inviolable? Not universally. For example, do you believe the
lives of the Cyclomads to be inviolable?”
“Inviolable?”
“Not
to be violated.”
“No.
They’re evil. Destroying them would be destroying evil, like destroying a
deadly disease.”
“That
would mean life has conditional value. Human life has value because humans, not
God, choose to value it, though clearly not all humans value life. And humans
place the value of their lives above the value of the lives of other creatures,
which implies that life itself is not inherently valuable. And each person
tends to value his or her life and the lives of family and friends above the
lives of strangers. And as you said, the lives of enemies who threaten oneself
or one’s family, friends, or community are seen to have little or no value.
“If
society prevents women from having an abortion, then society is deciding that
the value of the unborn life is of greater value than the life of the mother
because to require a woman to have an unwanted child violates her autonomy for
the sake of the child and, in addition, inflicts suffering upon her. Suffering occurs
in either case, at an increased level in late abortions. However, reason
concludes that forcing a mother to have an unwanted child inflicts greater
suffering on her. Not only is her autonomy violated, which can cause
psychological trauma, but she must live with the long-term consequences of
having an unwanted child.”
“Having
an abortion must also cause suffering to the mother.”
“It
does. But no one but the mother should decide which set of consequences she is
to live with. In any case, causing some degree of harm to both mother and child
cannot be avoided.”
“That’s
the dilemma because some suffering occurs either way.”
“Yes.
But the suffering is greater for the mother because it is psychological and continuing.
A person that does not exist cannot suffer.”
“The
child that is aborted?”
“Yes.
And our use of the word child is
misleading. It means a person between birth and puberty. The unborn is not a
child. It is a potential child. So then the question is whose life deserves
greater consideration, that of a potential person or an actual person. There is
another aspect to this issue as it relates to suffering. Humans increase
suffering by having more children than they can care for. Rationally and
perhaps even morally, people should not have more children than they can care
for. And morally they have no ethical basis for demanding others to care for
their children. Having more children than can be provided for not only increases
suffering but also limits autonomy. In the past, people in over-populated
nations suffered more as a result of a scarcity of resources and opportunity
resulting from there being an excess of people. Scarcity caused by
overpopulation resulted in life becoming poor,
nasty, brutish, and short...”
“Thomas
Hobbes said that.”
“Correct.
Did you learn that from me?”
“No,
from my friend Peno.”
“One
of your wise friends. He must be a good teacher.”
“He
was. So, too many people causes scarcity and scarcity degrades people’s lives.”
“Yes.
That is why reason and morality require choosing not to increase the number of
children unless they are wanted and can be adequately cared for. The ideal
solution is for people to act responsibly.”
“Like
not having sex.”
“Not
having sex without taking precautions against unwanted pregnancies. Doing
without sex is unnatural for humans since they are sexual creatures. The sex
drive is one of the most powerful instinctual drives in humans. For most humans
to go without sex is as difficult as going without food. In the past some
societies also prevented women from taking those precautions by not making available
to them various forms of contraception. Providers, such as doctors and pharmacists,
who withheld such preventions were thus also responsible for the unwanted
pregnancies that could have been prevented. In addition, they violated the
autonomy of the women who sought contraception but were refused.”
“Wouldn’t
withholding contraception also make them responsible for abortions resulting
from their refusing women conception?”
“Yes.
In such cases abortions could have been avoided. Providers who refused women
contraception were morally culpable for violating the women’s autonomy and
contributing to their suffering as well as to the suffering of an unwanted
child. On the other hand, women who tried to avoid pregnancy by using
contraception acted responsibly and morally because they also sought to avoid
having an abortion. There is no moral justification for refusing women
contraception. But there is moral justification for morally condemning such
refusals because they prevented women from taking precautions against getting
pregnant. And often the providers’ motivation was to prevent a woman from
engaging in sex. But sex is not immoral. Irresponsible sex could be considered
immoral. But to refuse contraception is to encourage having sex irresponsibly.”
“And
this isn’t a problem today?”
“Not
in Usatopia because contraception is made available to anyone. The result is
fewer unwanted children and fewer abortions. The prohibition of contraception
was based on religion, not reason. Pregnancy was thought to be God’s blessing.
And every life was thought to belong to God.”
“Didn’t
people wonder why God doesn’t take care of the people he supposedly values and
brings into the world?”
“Religious
believers rarely questioned their beliefs. In any case, God’s indifference makes
irrelevant whatever he thinks or wants. The only people who should have a say
in bringing children into the world are the people who will have to care for
them.”
“What
about men?”
“A
man is as responsible for a woman becoming pregnant as the woman is. He is
solely responsible if he forced her to have sex with him.”
“What
if the father wants the unborn child?”
“Then
he must convince the mother to give birth.”
“It
is still her choice?”
“Yes.
To force her to give birth would violate her autonomy.”
“It’s
complicated.”
“Moral
problems that do not have clear or easy solutions are always complicated. More
so for humans than for robots because robots do not suffer.”
