More handpicked essays just for you.
An essay on the ethics of artificial intelligence
Military ethics during war
An essay on the ethics of artificial intelligence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: An essay on the ethics of artificial intelligence
“Can Machines Learn Morality,” “morality” is defined as a person's standards of what is right and wrong. Drones are better at processing wartime morality than human soldiers because they have no other motive for their actions such as fear or trauma. However, they are also worse because they would have to interpret and execute actions that follow the rules of war and also split-second decisions that may have large impacts. Due to this, it is not possible for machines to learn wartime morality.
Machines can only reason through the programming that it's creator has written. There is no way to truly give a machine the thought of a human. If we include all human idiosyncrasies and judgments, a machine could become smarter than us but they will
The official foundations for "artificial intelligence" were set forth by A. M. Turing, in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" wherein he also coined the term and made predictions about the field. He claimed that by 1960, a computer would be able to formulate and prove complex mathematical theorems, write music and poetry, become world chess champion, and pass his test of artificial intelligences. In his test, a computer is required to carry on a compelling conversation with humans, fooling them into believing they are speaking with another human. All of his predictions require a computer to think and reason in the same manner as a human. Despite 50 years of effort, only the chess championship has come true. By refocusing artificial intelligence research to a more humanlike, cognitive model, the field will create machines that are truly intelligent, capable of meet Turing's goals. Currently, the only "intelligent" programs and computers are not really intelligent at all, but rather they are clever applications of different algorithms lacking expandability and versatility. The human intellect has only been used in limited ways in the artificial intelligence field, however it is the ideal model upon which to base research. Concentrating research on a more cognitive model will allow the artificial intelligence (AI) field to create more intelligent entities and ultimately, once appropriate hardware exists, a true AI.
In this paper, I will explore ethical issues to the artificial intelligence. In Wallach and Allen coauthored “Moral machines: teaching robots right from wrong”, they explore on many theories and practical issues for AMAs. I will use this book to interpret Wallach and Allen’s ideas of ethical design.
It can be argued that MIDREGs promotes moral behavior, but it is also easy to offer a rebuttal saying that it demoralizes midshipmen. I believe that it falls somewhere in the middle. In the beginning, MIDREGs can promote moral behavior by giving an outline of what is right and what behaviors are considered upstanding. For a plebe especially, reading MIDREGs allows us to understand how to behave. Many of us come from being civilians and would not know exactly the standards we are now to uphold without them being explicitly stated in MIDREGs; however, past the initial reading, I think it starts to make people think “How much can I do without getting in trouble?” There are, of course, some rules and guidelines in MIDREGs that are rules that
The position that I hold regarding the essay’s question is that I do not believe in an objective morality or in objective moral truths, I believe that all morality is entirely relative and subjective based on cultural norms because moral relativism is the philosophized meaning that right and wrong are not absolute values and that they are personalized based on the individual and the circumstances or cultural orientation. Morality applies within cultures but not across them. Ethical or cultural relativism and the various schools of pragmatism ignore the fact that certain ethical percepts probably grounded in human nature do appear to be universal and ancient, if not eternal. Ethical codes also vary in different societies, economies, and geographies
People love to read stories and watch movies of a science-fictional society that include robots with artificial intelligence. People are intrigued with the ability of the robots that seem to demonstrate what we humans consider morality. Eando Binder’s and Isaac Asimov’s short stories, as well as the 2004 Hollywood movie, all carry the title “I, Robot” and introduce possible futuristic worlds where robots are created and integrated within society. These stories challenge our perceptions about robots themselves, and could perhaps become an everyday commodity, or even valued assistants to human society. The different generations of “I, Robot” seem to set out the principles of robot behavior and showcase robots to people in both different and similar ways. How does the Robot view itself? More importantly, how does society judge these creations? The concepts discussed in these three stories covers almost 75 years of storytelling. Why has this theme stayed so relevant for so long?
“The sanctity of the oath” (Keillor 102), the controversial hot topic of this year. This is a subject that has sparked great debates not only to those in Congress, but among the American people as well. Some hold the oath as a promise of civility and humanity. On the other hand, others view the morality the oath is supposed to stand for as unreachable and unattainable. In my opinion Garrison Keillor sums it up in his essay, “The Republicans Were Right, But.” I feel this is a good essay based upon the author’s argument of morality, his use of symbolism, and the entire structure of the essay.
Immanuel Kant addresses a question often asked in political theory: the relationship between practical political behavior and morality -- how people do behave in politics and how they ought to behave. Observers of political action recognize that political action is often a morally questionable business. Yet many of us, whether involved heavily in political action or not, have a sense that political behavior could and should be better than this. In Appendix 1 of Perpetual Peace, Kant explicates that conflict does not exist between politics and morality, because politics is an application of morality. Objectively, he argues that morality and politics are reconcilable. In this essay, I will argue two potential problems with Kant’s position on the compatibility of moral and politics: his denial of moral importance in emotion and particular situations when an action seems both politically legitimate and yet almost immoral; if by ‘politics’, regarded as a set of principles of political prudence, and ‘morals’, as a system of laws that bind us unconditionally.
In every civilized society you will always find many varying forms of morality and values, especially in the United States of America. In Societies such as these you find a mosaic of differing religions, cultures, political alignments, and socio economic backgrounds which suggests that morality and values are no different. In Friedrich Nietzsche’s book, Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche discusses morality and the two categories that you will find at the very basis of all varieties of morality. One category of morality focuses on the “Higher Man” and his superiority to all those under him and his caste. The second system is derived from those of a lower caste that may be used by those in higher castes to further themselves and society. These categories as described by Nietzsche are known as Master Morality and Slave Morality. In this modern time in our culture, morality is becoming a more polarizing topic than ever before. Morality is often times held synonymous with religious practice and faith, although morality is an important part of religion and faith, everyone has some variation of morality no matter their religious affiliation or lack thereof. Friedrich Nietzsche’s theories on morality, Master and Slave Morality, describe to categories of morality which can be found at the very basis of most variations of morality. Master and Slave morality differ completely from each other it is not uncommon to find blends of both categories from one person to another. I believe the Master Morality and Slave Morality theories explain not only religious affiliations but also political alignments and stances on certain social issues in American society. By studying the origins and meanings of Nietzsche’s theories, comparing these theories to c...
If a machine passes the test, then it is clear that for many ordinary people it would be a sufficient reason to say that that is a thinking machine. And, in fact, since it is able to conversate with a human and to actually fool him and convince him that the machine is human, this would seem t...
The second reason to act morally is because there is religion. Sometimes moral codes are obtained by theologians who clarify holy books, like the Bible in Christianity, the Torah in Judaism, and the Qur 'an in Islam. Their conclusions are often accepted as absolute by their believers. Those who believe in God view him as the supreme law giver; a God to whom we owe obedience and allegiance. In other words, they think that being a good person is one who obey god by following his commandments. Religion helps people to judge whether a certain act is good or bad, which can be considered as the definition of morality. Most religions promote the same values which are: fairness, loyalty, honesty, trust, etc.... Similarly, McGinn lists the same qualities
James Rachels' article, "Morality is Not Relative," is incorrect, he provides arguments that cannot logically be applied or have no bearing on the statement of contention. His argument, seems to favor some of the ideas set forth in cultural relativism, but he has issues with other parts that make cultural relativism what it is.
A staggering issue with artificial intelligence is their judgement to make decisions. Artificial intelligence raises flags concerning their ethical standards. While many technologies may be received as unethical, it comes down to how they are programmed. Safety standards are put
I don’t think there is any reason for these robots to have every ability that a human does. There is no way they are going to have the intelligence a human does. Artificial Intelligence is just going to bring more harm into our communities. We can’t trust the robots doing the “everyday” human activities, they are going to lead to unemployment, and will lead to laziness causing more obesity.
In the past few decades we have seen how computers are becoming more and more advance, challenging the abilities of the human brain. We have seen computers doing complex assignments like launching of a rocket or analysis from outer space. But the human brain is responsible for, thought, feelings, creativity, and other qualities that make us humans. So the brain has to be more complex and more complete than any computer. Besides if the brain created the computer, the computer cannot be better than the brain. There are many differences between the human brain and the computer, for example, the capacity to learn new things. Even the most advance computer can never learn like a human does. While we might be able to install new information onto a computer it can never learn new material by itself. Also computers are limited to what they “learn”, depending on the memory left or space in the hard disk not like the human brain which is constantly learning everyday. Computers can neither make judgments on what they are “learning” or disagree with the new material. They must accept into their memory what it’s being programmed onto them. Besides everything that is found in a computer is based on what the human brain has acquired though experience.
7. Robots, Ethics & War. (n.d.). Center for Internet and Society. Retrieved November 10, 2013, from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2010/12/robots-ethics-war