Do Asimov’s now-famous Three Laws of Robotics
mirror humanity’s ethics code in any way? Explain.
Suscribirse a:
Enviar comentarios (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
What is this blog for?
The purpose of this blog is to share opinions about the Anglo-Saxon literature.
I will post some comments and questions about the topics discussed in class and you have to participate expressing your own points of view. You need to check the blog constantly 'cause depending on your classmates' opinions or ideas, you will answer. It means that you must participate more than once for each comment I post. Make the blog a dynamic window where we can share links, ideas and opinions that can help us learn more about the British and American Literature.
I will post some comments and questions about the topics discussed in class and you have to participate expressing your own points of view. You need to check the blog constantly 'cause depending on your classmates' opinions or ideas, you will answer. It means that you must participate more than once for each comment I post. Make the blog a dynamic window where we can share links, ideas and opinions that can help us learn more about the British and American Literature.
Este comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarAsimov’s three Laws of Robotics are:
Eliminar1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
These laws or “rules” seems to be strict but these are the best way in which human beings can be protected that is the main objective of the three laws of robotics. On the other hand, for analyzing these laws it is important to consider that they represent the robot´s ethic code that in any way reflect the humanity´s ethic ones, because human beings live surrounded of many rules, commands and laws and they have to respect it. Morally human beings have to protect themselves, and lawfully people who injure in any way to someone have to be punished; in the case of robots they do not need to be jailed as humans, but they have strict rules that must follow, and their brains are designed for obeying these specific laws .
Este comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
EliminarFirst and foremost is necessary clarify what humanity’s ethic code is a set of desirable behaviors that all human beings wish and through of it is assessed the moral of the humanity’s acts. No matter the origin of this code (religious, innate, common sense, and so on ), as it always states that no men can harm another man. It also says that reasonable obedience is a ideal, besides that it is necessary do everything on your power to preserve in a reasonable way the life and existence.
EliminarThe Isaac Asimov’s three laws of robotics state the same ideas, since he as a reasonable human being knows that without balance on those three aspects mirrored in the laws it is impossible achieve any state of order or reasonable governability that assure any kind of life existence. We do not have to go too far to see the aforementioned; all what it is necessary to do is opening any book or manual of law, for instance, the Venezuelan penal code, which states that no one can kill to anybody but in self-defense.
In one heterosociety (humans and intelligent robots) like the Isaac Asimov’s stories, the warrantee that the humans will domain and master the robots, and that the machines won’t rebel against them as a superior entity was necessary at the moment of the robots creation. An unbalance among the three laws could create chaos and annihilation of humanity; and that is what the writer is warning in some chapters.
The author really believes that whatever the society results in the future from the human progress, it must get and achieve the desirable behaviors (ethic code) that all humans have stated to wish and which have been so difficult to get yet .
According to the human laws, people must obey political, religious, cultural, and scientific orders; in any social context, so robots must obey human orders, but the difference is that humans are reasonable and robots are logical.
ResponderEliminarMaria, I think that the blind obedience that people must demonstrate in all contexts like you said, belongs to the past times; right now everywhere and anybody has been challenged them because they arenot rights. Just watch or read the news, you will see the mass in conflicts with their authorities, for example, the UNEFM students asking for the resignation of the rector, the people bloking the free transit onany highway just because they do not accept the scarcity of water, and so on. So I really think that people must obey reasonabble orders, and we are going to that direction, although the complete obedience is utopic, since we are not robots, like Isaac Asimov tells in his stories.
EliminarAlthough robots are designed for obeying the three laws, it can be possible that they violate it; because as long as they are more advanced or like human beings in all their system (brain); maybe they can act violating the laws and getting away morality.
ResponderEliminarEste comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarEste comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarRobots never will be as human beings, they do not have the ability to think and feel as human have, so although they have an ethic code humans also have it, and one of the rules or command from the bible is that people have to be diligent using their hands and intelligence for working, so if robots cover all responsibilities of human beings in relation to work or job; people will be negligent or lazy at the time to work or simple they will not feel obligated for doing it, because robots will do everything. Besides if it were possible, humanity will violate the God´s law and that is not the idea.
ResponderEliminarAsimov tended to be a pessimist about humanity. Late in life, he allowed the possibility that humans might improve in the future. “But still,” he said, “people tend to do things that harm Humanity.” Do you agree or disagree with Asimov’s pessimism? Why or why not?
ResponderEliminarIf any of us read the humanity history, he/she soon will realize that it have been a series of events of destruction and chaos. However, a comparison between the past events and the recentest , tells that the humanity is progressing in all the aspects, especially on human rights and justice. In the past ( Isaac’ time) world war I and II had happened and millions of people died without reasonable reason(just because one race felt superior to the others or for stupid wishes of territorial extension or wealth). In contrast, nowadays it is very difficult to start a war because the world is interconnected and informed of the situations and to gain public support is harder; and also because the some army have human extermination weapons.
EliminarIn the past, there was slavery and exploitation and open and legal discrimination based on races, origin, or religion ( Jews, gypsies and black extermination, crusades). But today’s day there are a series of legal frameworks that protect the diversity of people, and it is accepted that no color, origin or religion makes to any human being superior to the rest. All of us are equals.
Certainly the whole job is not done yet and exist conflicts and critical situations among nations and persons, and the entities and institutions seems to fall, but the common sense and the feeling of ethic always prevails.
So, I complete disagree with Assimov pessimism, since I really think that the humanity has improved and the situations are getting better. We are in the right direction. It is just matter of time. The humanity’s ethic code someday in the near future will be accomplished completely
Este comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarIn my opinion, Asimov was more realistic than pessimist. Maybe the way in which he said “people tend to do things that harm humanity” sounded like pessimism, but if we analyze his perception about humanity, it is not so far from the reality, because people since the beginning of the world (creation) have harmed humanity in any way, either directly or indirectly, physically or psychological. So, I am in agreement with Asimov about humanity but not at all, because as he said “people might improve in the future” and I could better say that people CAN not only improve but also CHANGE, because the creator of humanity “GOD” says that he do not like violence on the contrary he says in one of his commandments: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39). And also says: Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Therefore “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.”Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans: 12: 17-21. (Holy Bible)
ResponderEliminarhttps://www.bible.com/es-ES/bible/114/rom.12.16.nkjv.
The idea is to obey the earthly laws and God´s commandments for changing the world.
ResponderEliminarEste comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
EliminarI wouldn't say that. I'd rather say that the idea is to obey only reasonable laws; since if they arenot, won't have optimistic future. Fortunately, in my opinion we are on track. Finally do not forget that the "negroes " in USA say:: NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE.
ResponderEliminar