I enjoyed this collection of readings more than I thought I would, mainly because they opened my eyes to the conundrum that is moral philosophy. That's not to say I never thought about the right/wrong question(s) before. Ultimately, what I learned is that there really may never be a right/wrong...when it comes to certain questions. And I'm okay with that.
The robot/car decision-maker articles were enlightening. I'll confess I never realized there was actual consideration being given to cars making a life or death choices. Isn't that science fiction? I'm fascinated--but not surprised--by the idea that what holds back the technology is public opinion, and I'm even more intrigued by experimental ethics--posing ethical dilemmas to a large number of people to see how they respond. The various scenarios in which a car might kill a single driver or a larger group had me wondering: if the car "knows" enough to drive into a wall to avoid killing the crowd, can't it also "know" to lesson the impact (if you might be killed)? As for robots, the question I asked myself was: why do we need ethical robots? Shouldn't humans be the ultimate, final stopgap for all decisions? I don't pretend to know the answer, but it's an important thing to ponder.
I especially enjoyed the mental exercise behind the BuzzFeed "quiz." Some of the situations were simple to answer, and I moved right along, no additional thought about the other option (i.e. the one I didn't choose), but a couple made me pause. In "A Sinking Sensation" I had to choose between a guaranteed survival on another boat vs. taking my chances at living on the other. Do I feel bad for the people on the sinking boat? OF COURSE! But not enough that I'm willing to possibly give up my life to save strangers. Sorry I'm not sorry. Same with saving my child vs. my niece or saving my husband over his lover. The common thread in these situations? They most directly affect my life. It's all about making the best wrong choice. If you think about it, it's something we all do regularly, maybe daily, in order to decide the best outcome for me. It's very personal.
The New York Times opinion piece about resolving moral disputes goes back to my favorite old "belief" argument. This line hit home: "It is safe to say that the more ethical a political dispute is, the more heated and intractable it is likely to become." I connect with those words. I want to know what makes moral disagreements so intractable...is it the emotion of the issue, the belief itself? Again: there really may never be a right/wrong...when it comes to certain questions.
Finally, the article about men and women and their differences when it comes to moral dilemmas made me wonder: am I actually a man when it comes to moral dilemmas? I promise you this: I'd never sacrifice a child to the porn industry to support my family. If we needed to move to survive, I'd go, I'm of the mindset there has to be a better way. I won't call myself naive (just yet). I would work harder to find a solution that would work for my family. Period. Even if it meant somebody else had to die.
No comments:
Post a Comment