My midterm paper dealt with the subject of moral questions that come along with the creation of machines that seem to deserve the status of personhood. It was primarily concerned with the responsibilities of the human creators of these machines. My proposed final paper will also investigate moral issues that result from the creation of hypothetical machines that seem to deserve the status of personhood, but it will be concerned with the responsibilities of the machines themselves. It will especially focus on person-machines in which the traits that seem to establish human personhood are not only present, but present to a higher degree then they are in humans. Two of the many questions that this subject raises are: What responsibilities do these superhuman person-machines have to the inferior human race that created them? What does this say about our responsibilities to lesser developed species?
I would prefer, pending approval, to write this paper in a similar way as I did my midterm paper. Rather than an argumentative paper with a strong thesis (which would give my paper an undesirable rigidity and not particularity well deserved tone of authority on this highly speculative subject) I would like to write it as a preliminary exploration on the subject. This starting point will provide the ability to objectively look at questions, especially questions of morality where there is no particular philosophical consensus, and selectively apply different ideas in order analyze their philosophical implications. This will provide the foundation from which I can begin to determine the nature of a reasonable philosophical standpoint on the matter, and the problems such a standpoint would need to overcome.
Sources that I would list would not be particularly meaningful, as they will certainly be subject to change over the course of the paper writing process.
April 24, 2008 at 3:45 am
This sounds like a very interesting topic. I think your approach will work, in terms of trying to mark out the territory and recognize the kinds of problems it will pose. Still, I think it is important to seek out a thesis by the end, or at least a definite conclusion. This can be conditional, however, depending on how you find the territory to be.
Thus, something like “superhuman robots, should they be capable of developing superior moral theories and reasoning to our own, might still be obligated to treat us with moral respect” might be such a thesis/conclusion. It would then need to be defended against a claim like “yes, but then why do we not have moral obligations to chimpanzees”? for instance.