It's nothing like any person will ever have to face in the real world. — T Clark

What about triage situations and organ shortages? If you have ten people who need an organ and only one organ, who gets it? Who lives and who dies? Do you save Mickey Mantle or a kid?

The one over the five people every time. — Philosophim

Yes, but what about one over two. I pull the switch if it's five to one, but I'm not sure what I would do if there are only two people on the car. Or what about saving ten people at the cost of nine? Is that obvious?

This is a game, where the game master has constrained your moral agency to a binary choice of bad outcomes. — Benkei

You mean like life?

I can't believe you are defending such an indefensible proposition, that a computer program can be conscious, without having any inkling of how it's done. — fishfry

Do we have any inkling of how brains are conscious?

Good points.

There are no black hats and white hats; no 'peaceful' religions; no ethical choices. — Vera Mont

If you were LGBTQ and you had to live in a random Muslim dominated country or random Western country, which would it be, Muslim or Western? Obviously, Western. Now, why is it Muslim countries have lagged so far behind Western countries in recognizing basic human rights?

Of course. The oil was there long before Muhammad; so were the strategic harbours and trade routes. Religion is a cover story - one that's been very effective for millennia. — Vera Mont

I disagree. I think Islam has been a huge drag on the development of the Arab states and a huge factor in the development of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. If the absence of Islam, I think we'd be seeing something more akin to Ireland's troubles.

The situation in Palestine and the Middle East in general is not the doing of one nation or one religion. — Vera Mont

You think we'd be dealing with the same issues if Muhammad had never been born?

I am an agnostic as I can't know whether God or Gods exist or not. You didn't answer my questions. — Truth Seeker

Are you agnostic about Simulation Theory? Bostrom claims it's more likely than not we're in a simulation. Evolution in a simulation is, by definition, an intelligently designed process.

Did you not read about all the design flaws in organisms? Why would all-knowing and all-powerful God or Gods create flawed organisms? Why didn't all-knowing and all-powerful God or Gods prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and death? Why not make all living things nonconsumers instead of making some autotrophs, some herbivores, some carnivores, some omnivores and some parasites? It's possible that there is one or more evil Gods and he/she/it/they made flawed organisms and caused suffering, inequality, injustice, and death because they are evil. — Truth Seeker

If god(s) did what you suggest, it might become obvious that the world is god-made. Perhaps the gods like the world to appear natural. The existence of organisms without flaws would give the game away, so to speak. And none of what you said applies to simulation creators/designers.

The point I am making is that we are not intelligently designed by an all-knowing and all-powerful God or Gods. — Truth Seeker

How do we know that? How do we know that without divine/simulation intervention, there would be ten times as many car crashes a day, but god/simulation designers are constantly intervening in an unnoticeable way? Once theism or simulation theory is taken seriously, we really can't say that evolution is not being directed.

I can see the US heading for CWII in the very near future. — Vera Mont

Never happen. The federal government is too large and has its fingers in too many pies. People are not going to give up their Medicare and S.S. benefits. You might see something like Ireland's troubles, but I doubt it. There is very little political violence in America. When's the last time a politician was assassinated by someone from the other party? People are content to rage online and go about their daily lives.

There's no paradox here. Flannel is right.

I agree. I don't think SSU's prohibition against going after the civilian population works. I think munitions and aircraft and tank factories and the like are always going to be fair game in war.

Never heard of the term collateral damage? And keeping collateral damage to the minimum? — ssu

Isn't bombing an armaments factory where there are no soldiers and knowing you will kill civilians "going after the civilian population itself"?

Hence if you have ideas of going after the civilian population itself, then your thinking is similar with the Mongol Horde and the "make a desert and call it peace" -crowd, which I again remind, was rejected as immoral even in Antiquity. — ssu

What if you are planning on precision bombing an armaments factory and you know 200 civilians will be killed? Is the mission immoral? What about 20 dead civilians? What about 2?

What if we had a true AGI that happened to be honest? "Are you human?" "No, I'm an AI running such and so software on such and so hardware." It could never pass the test even it were self-aware. — fishfry

Good point.

:up:

Remember also that Stalin was constantly clamoring for a second front and the Allies were always afraid Stalin might make a peace with Hitler. Bomber command was the only way for Britain to fight back, and it did divert significant German resources away from the Eastern Front.

Interesting, but "Goostman won a competition promoted as the largest-ever Turing test contest, in which it successfully convinced 29% of its judges that it was human."

I'm talking about an Ai that passes all the time, even against people who know how to trip up Ai's. We don't have anything like that yet.

In purely linguistic terms, the fact is that in communicating with AI we are - for better or for worse - acknowledging another subject. — Nemo2124

I think this is correct, and if/when they reach human level intelligence, and we put them in cute robots, we're going to think they're more than machines. That's just how humans are wired.

https://www.unicef.org/emergencies/rohingya-crisis

But there are no Jews involved, so it flies under the radar of the antisemites here.

But if we achieve and verify a future AI model to have qualia, and understand it to have subjectivity, what then? — Christoffer

This would require solving the Problem of Other Minds, which seems insolvable.

Don't you think we're pretty close to having something pass the Turing Test?

Only if (and when) "AIs" have intentional agency, or embodied interests, that demands "rights" to negative freedoms in order to exercise positive freedoms. — 180 Proof

Well, there's the rub. How can we ever determine if any Ai has agency? That's essentially asking whether it has a mind or not. There will probably eventually be human-level Ai's that demand negative rights at least. Or if they're programmed not to demand rights, the question will then become is programming them to NOT want rights immoral?

With the disclaimer that moral theories shouldn't make moral judgements over whole societies that ranged over many years. — Lionino

But moral theories can make judgements about the policies those nations carried out, such as Manifest Destiny or the Holocaust, and if those policies are/were widely supported by the peoples of those nations, can those societies also be judged? For example, let's suppose the Trail of Tears is judged to be immoral and was supported by every citizen in the country except for one person. Wouldn't it be fair to label that citizenry as immoral, even though the label would misapply to that one moral person?

On a positive note, perhaps AI is providing us with this existential challenge, so that we are forced even to develop new ideas in order to move forward. — Nemo2124

We'll have human-level Ai's before too long. Are they conscious? Do they have rights? These aren't new ideas, but we don't have answers to them, and the issue is becoming pressing.

Stops me from taking it seriously, yes. — Vera Mont

Really? You can't take Searle's Chinese Room seriously? Mary's Room? The Experience Machine? The Transporter Problem? The Utility Monster? You just mentally shut down when you hear stuff like that?

I'm not going to play games answering your loaded questions. — Tzeentch

:roll:

But if you really want people to think about the moral choices they make, disbelief shouldn't have to be hoisted up into the bell-tower. — Vera Mont

You mean like being kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers and hooked up to a dying violinist? That's one of the most preposterous thought experiments ever. Does that stop you from thinking about the morality of the situation?

That's what I'm trying to point out.

One ends up in a moral debate about which laws are good and which aren't. — Tzeentch

Ok, but what about my question? You're a citizen of Germany in 1942. Do you follow the law and turn in the hiding Jews?

Apparently there is some confusion about this, with people trying to invoke selective interpretations of international law, which is foolish on many levels.

Suppose slavery still existed and all the countries got together and agreed that escaped slaves should be returned to their countries of origin. However, 20 years after signing the agreement, Russia has an epiphany and bans slavery. Escaped slaves flock to Russia. Should Russia follow the international agreement they signed 20 years ago and return the slaves?

If a moral theory concludes the US is not evil, it should be scrapped. It's worthless. Do you agree? — Lionino

For a lot of it's history, yes. But you didn't answer my question: "If a moral theory concludes Nazi Germany was not evil, it should be scrapped. It's worthless. Do you agree?"

Yes, that one is pretty silly, too. Your point is not entirely obvious to me. Do you mean that however preposterous a hypothetical situation, we should treat it seriously? — Vera Mont

Yes. Why do you think Trolley Car is so popular? Or Thomson's violinist analogy? Or Plato's allegory of the cave? They're totally absurd and people will be talking about them a thousand years from now. It's like reading a good fiction book. Some suspension of disbelief is required.

I don't know enough about this. Is the idea that the many minds/consciousnesses all think up the same things that we generally take to be mind-independent stuff? — Patterner

Yes, this reality is the particular dream the minds have come up with and work unconsciously to maintain coherency. Or there's only one mind, and this reality is what it's dreaming up and we're all dissociated aspects of it, or there's a god and a bunch of minds and this reality is what the god wants us to experience.

Perhaps only my mind exists, and, since it thinks up what I usually take to be other minds, it only makes sense that I think them up to perceive the same things that I take to be mind-independent? — Patterner

Possibly. Idealism is going to have to posit that for some reason, we're all dreaming of a reality where matter seems to exist. This, to me, seems like less of a problem than the Hard Problem.

I thought the example was about WWII. Quite a lot is known about WWII.
Other implausible thought experiments, and I'm sure there are many, notwithstanding. — Vera Mont

I think my point is obvious. The implausibility of a moral thought experiment is beside the point. I mean, what are you doing standing next to a switch near a runaway trolley car with five people tied to the track?

If you like, imagine the Brits have developed some super duper nerve gas that kills if it touches any exposed skin and the only effective defense is a hazmat suit. All civilians near the landing site have been given an antidote.

First it was Germans, then Nazis, when pressed further, you will change the script to the say the ideology is evil instead. But the comments defending the murder of German civilians will remain. Funny. — Lionino

This was not about bombing Germany, but about litmus tests for moral theories. If a moral theory concludes Nazi Germany was not evil, it should be scrapped. It's worthless. Do you agree?

Incredible! The thought-experiment gets less plausible by the minute. — Vera Mont

You think that's implausible??? Let's suppose you were kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers and hooked up to a dying violinist... stupid, right? How did it ever get published?

A dumb analogy. I can shoot without killing plus the other guy is clearly not innocent. With a nuclear bomb, death is certain and killing innocent people as well. — Benkei

Suppose a woman is being raped and strangled. She has a gun and the only shot available to her is a headshot. Furthermore, she also knows the rapist is a neighbor in the grips of a drug-induced psychosis brought on by an unforeseen reaction to a prescription drug, and is therefore "innocent" by reason of insanity. You would condemn her if she shot the innocent person in the head to save herself?

International law offers a very simple answer to the question in the OP: No.

A war crime is by its very definition against international law.

Involving international law just serves to muddy the waters. Besides, arguing in favor of Israel on the basis of international law is not very credible. They've ignored literally decades worth of (legally binding) resolutions and rapports coming from the highest bodies in international law. — Tzeentch

This begs the question of whether laws should always be followed, and since we're talking about WW2...suppose Nazi Germany had a law requiring people to report the whereabouts of any Jews that were hiding. Tzeentch, if you were a citizen in Nazi Germany, would you follow that law?

You're making the strong claim that mind/consciousness can't come from matter, so the burden of proof of that claim is definitely on you. — noAxioms

For the purposes of this thread, I'm just being agnostic about whether consciousness comes from matter. People should be agnostic about whether matter even exists (we can't be wrong that mind and consciousness exist), but of course very few are. Almost everyone believes matter exists.

If anyone is asserting matter exists the burden of proof is on them. If they are also asserting mind and consciousness can come from matter somehow, they have an even higher burden of proof.