Fur - how can anybody be comfortable with this?

[Lemmy]

Originally Posted by karomesis

Objectively arguing morality is simliar to arguing taste, which, contrary to popular opinion, cannot ever be won by either side.

The lifeforms on this planet arose through a process that is ruthless and heartless......evolution. Jim was hinting at the results of it when he commented on our incisors. I may agree or disagree with machiavelli, but his principles hold true regardless.

In probably less than 15 years or so we will have artificial meat and other animal products that taste exactly like the real thing but are grown in labs using nanotech, saving billions and billions of dollars in the process.

In a philosophy class I would agree with you. Outside the world of academia, not entirely. All the rules and conventions most of us live by, whether we agree with them or not, are based on moral values and without them society would fall apart.

Yes, "evolution" (up to a certain point) made the world what it is, but natural selection hasn't been a factor in the development of human societies for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. And this is exactly what sets us apart from animals; compassion and empathy, the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, or even have a concept of right and wrong (based on moral values). Knowing when to do the right thing. Or self-servingly act against that knowledge no matter who gets hurt.

Me, I'm really looking forward to a nice, juicy nano-burger.

[karomesis]

All the rules and conventions most of us live by, whether we agree with them or not, are based on moral values and without them society would fall apart.

"morality" is actually a societally placed construct that predetermines the likelyhood of this or that value that just so happens to be in vogue at any given time. Once we have a real AI, the merits of my argument will become much more apparent.
How will an artificial intelligence learn morals? and from whom? fanatical muslims? perhaps an odd skinhead or two? If democracy, then when do we start? It cannot be "moral" according to everyone, which means to some it will be immoral.

Yes, "evolution" (up to a certain point) made the world what it is, but natural selection hasn't been a factor in the development of human societies for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. And this is exactly what sets us apart from animals; compassion and empathy, the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, or even have a concept of right and wrong (based on moral values). Knowing when to do the right thing. Or self-servingly act against that knowledge no matter who gets hurt.

A quick perusal of this subject will quickly dispell any notions of human superiority over other animals. Even though we no longer kill mammoth, it certainly doesn't mean we lack the primitive impulses and desires of our ancestors. They have just become less pronounced to the casual observer.

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homep...blications.htm

In evo psych topics like the "cinderella effect" are discussed. that is the statistical probability of harm a child will be either injured or killed by a stepparent, which is much greater than from a biological parent. Did you also know that women are most likely to cheat during ovulation? when her chances of becoming pregnant are far more likely. I could go on and on with examples, but this is supposed to be a porn forum so I'll shut up now.