I am attorney Hickerson and I will be defending Gina Hickerson, my humanoid robot. The government is trying to pass a law outlawing robots like Gina because, they are just machines and do not have minds. I am here to prove to the jury that Gina does have a mind and should not be destroyed. I will provide two different arguments with supporting details to prove that Gina has a mind and that this law should not be admitted.
1. Argument Number One:
I will start by presenting my first argument. I am the owner of a humanoid robot. A humanoid robot is a robot with its body shape built to resemble the body of a human. Her name is Gina, she is my best friend. Gina knows how to survive when I’m away working. She masters various tasks quickly with little to no error such as cleaning and maintenance work. She calls me and says how much she misses me, and when I get home she gives me a big hug. How can one deny that Gina does not have a mind if she acts like a human mentally, physically and emotionally? You can’t!
Similarly, a dog has the ability to survive on its own. A dog has the ability to learn and show emotion when its owner is gone for too long. Even though dogs cannot answer questions like humans or Gina, they can be trained to say phrases like “I love you”. Dog’s utilize their five sense and are very alert. It is illegal for a human to kill an animal, so it ought to be illegal for the government to destroy robots like mine. Gina has the exact qualities of a dog or any human that has the ability to adapt. When a child is born it’s not born with the knowledge to survive or take care of itself. Yet, through teaching the child it will learn to take care of its self and become resourceful.
Also, every citizen of the United States a...
... middle of paper ...
...and how to answer questions. Gina reads between the lines and can use logics to figure out a problem. Gina is my child in a way because I created her. She has her own personality and shows passion and emotion. Gina is aware of this trial and her destiny if this law passes. Think about how she feels, think about how I feel defending Gina’s life. Imagine how it feels to be on trial and not wanted by society. How would you feel if your child had to be destroyed because the government did not see him/her acceptable in society? I’m sure you would feel heartbroken. Gina is a part of my life that I just can’t see leaving. Gina deserves to experience life just because she is able to. Gina has a mind and is very intelligent. She should be treated with the same dignity as any other human or dog and be entitled freedom of life. Gina should have rights and given a fair chance.
“I argue that it is personhood, and not genetic humanity, which is the fundamental basis for membership in the moral community” (Warren 166). Warren’s primary argument for abortion’s permissibility is structured around her stance that fetuses are not persons. This argument relies heavily upon her six criteria for personhood: A being’s sentience, emotionality, reason, capacity for communication, self-awareness, and having moral agencies (Warren 171-172). While this list seems sound in considering an average, healthy adult’s personhood, it neither accounts for nor addresses the personhood of infants, mentally ill individuals, or the developmentally challenged. Sentience is one’s ability to consciously feel and perceive things around them. While it is true that all animals and humans born can feel and perceive things within their environment, consider a coma patient, an individual suspended in unconsciousness and unable to move their own body for indeterminate amounts of time. While controversial, this person, whom could be in the middle of an average life, does not suddenly become less of a person
The criterion for personhood is widely accepted to consist of consciousness (ability to feel pain), reasoning, self-motivation, communication and self-awareness. When Mary Anne Warren states her ideas on this topic she says that it is not imperative that a person meet all of these requirements, the first two would be sufficient. We can be led to believe then that not all human beings will be considered persons. When we apply this criterion to the human beings around us, it’s obvious that most of us are part of the moral community. Although when this criterion is applied to fetuses, they are merely genetic human beings. Fetuses, because they are genetically human, are not included in the moral community and therefore it is not necessary to treat them as if they have moral rights. (Disputed Moral Issues, p.187). This idea is true because being in the moral community goes hand in hand w...
When a person takes another person's life, then that person should have his own life taken as well. Beautiful dark-haired Gina and her sweet brown-eyed babies, did not ask for, nor want, their precious live...
Mary Anne Warren’s “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” describes her justification that abortion is not a fundamentally wrong action for a mother to undertake. By forming a distinction between being genetically human and being a fully developed “person” and member of the “moral community” that encompasses humanity, Warren argues that it must be proven that fetuses are human beings in the morally relevant sense in order for their termination to be considered morally wrong. Warren’s rationale of defining moral personhood as showcasing a combination of five qualities such as “consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, capacity of communication, and self-awareness” forms the basis of her argument that a fetus displays none of these elements that would justify its classification as a person and member of the morally relevant community (Timmons 386).
“I argue that it is personhood, and not genetic humanity, which is the fundamental basis for membership in the moral community” (133). This is the central idea in Mary Anne Warren’s argument on the personhood of a fetus. She argues that in order for a genetic human being to be considered a person, he or she would have to possess all of the six criteria’s of personhood which include sentience, ability to reason and emotionality. In order to determine the viability of the personhood of a fetus she argues two things. Firstly, Warren argues that even on the surmise that a fetus has a strong right to life, abortion can still be seen as morally permissible. Warren demonstrates this by using Judith Johnson’s Violinist analogy, which asks the basic
Warren insists that the “moral” sense of human and “genetic” sense of human must be kept separate in this observation. As she defines the two, she goes on to say that the confusion of the two: “results in a slide of meaning, which serves to conceal the fallaciousness of the traditional argument that since (1) it is wrong to kill innocent human beings, and (2) fetuses are innocent human beings, then (3) it is wrong to kill fetuses. For if `human' is used in the same sense in both (1) and (2) then, whichever of the two senses is meant, one of these premises is question begging. And if it is used in two different senses then of course the conclusion doesn't follow”(Warren 434). With this she concludes that a human being is one that is a fully active participant in society. In the moral commun...
In contrast, with the previous three articles which embody the development of robots as a useful tool for human growth, Headrick focus on the ethic and legal conflicts that will arise with the growth of robots. The creation of artificial intelligence in human lives will bring many unique situations. Headrick begins his article with an analogy of a driverless car in a parking lot. The car is programmed to go straight so it may not see certain things and react as quickly or effectively, to insure no lives are harmed. If a human were behind the wheel these situation would be unlikely to occur. With the spread of autonomous systems is it really beneficial to put the safety of humans in the hands of robots. Will our laziness to make our lives easier with lifeless objects jeopardized our existence. Headrick uses multiple Headrick points out real life situations where robots have jeopardized human livelihood. “The more we task robotics to act on our behalf," "one of the first questions is, 'who is responsible' in the moment of truth.… we don't have an answer for that yet” (Headrick 1). Who do we blame when the robots don’t function correct? Headrick provokes humans to think in an effective manner towards the growth of automated
The human mind is undoubtedly the most complicated area of research in the world of science. New evidence is unraveled from time to time pertaining to how people think and respond to the various stimuli and cues that surround them. Nevertheless, it is clear that the human cognitive process has been shaped by their genetic composition into a fixed form, such that they tend not to depart from certain formalities and have involuntarily denied themselves autonomy. Keith Stanovich notes the consistency in the human thinking process in his book “The Robot 's Rebellion”, in which he compares human beings to robots as they have held onto certain genes that guide their thinking process in the same way that a pre-installed software would guide the
Humans have distinct traits and features that make us who we are. Humans have the ability to express emotion and we have a conscious mind. In this day and age, technology is becoming more and more important in all fields of life. Robots, machines, and computers are all examples of technological advances being made. In the medical field machines and robots are now performing surgeries on patients. A ventilator is a machine that keeps a person alive by delivering oxygen to the lungs and the rest of the body. But, what classifies that machine as not being human? William James coined the term “Automatic Sweetheart”, meaning a soulless body devoid of a conscious. During James’s time of life words like robot were not used. James used the term of
Are machines available to think intelligently? To act like a human, to think like a human, to understand the meaning from the words like human do? Do machines have a mind? Many films showed audiences that robot have a mind, which pretended they have a mental state (such as emotions, consciousness,
Artificial Intelligence, also known as AI, allows a machine to function as if the machine has the capability to think like a human. While we are not expecting any hovering cars anytime soon, artificial intelligence is projected to have a major impact on the labor force and will likely replace about half the workforce in the United States in the decades to come. The research in artificial intelligence is advancing rapidly at an unstoppable rate. So while many people feel threatened by the possibility of a robot taking over their job, computer scientists actually propose that robots would benefit a country’s efficiency of production, allowing individuals to reap the benefits of the robots. For the advantage of all, researchers and analysts have begun to mend the past ideas of human-robot interaction. They have pulled inspiration from literary works of Isaac Asimov whom many saw as the first roboticist ahead of his time, and have also gotten ideas of scholarly research done by expert analysts. These efforts have began to create an idea of a work force where humans and robots work together in harmony, on a daily basis.
He claims that Robots may not be suitable to watch over children. Robots lack the human emotion and humanity that children and the elderly need claims Sharkey. Children and the elderly have social needs that robots simplify cannot fulfill. Touch, and companionship is are just a few needs that people need that robots
A.I.: Artificial Intelligence is a Steven Spielberg science fiction drama film, which conveys the story of a younger generation robot, David, who yearns for his human mother’s love. David’s character stimulates the mind-body question. What is the connection between our “minds” and our bodies?
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.
...ings to ignore. For example, they affect the manner in which the brain functions. Robots also affect the social life of people, in society, which has become an ethical issue among many researchers. On the right side, robots also offer security to families and companies and perform duties that are dangerous to human beings. In addition to that, robots are of benefit in the medical field especially to students with disabilities and those awaiting organ transplant procedures. This is where robots help them remain in touch with their friends. However, there are many security concerns in regard of robotic objects, especially when people use them in place of human interactions. However, the coming days may produce advanced robots with sensor-based, animated devices that use expressive sound, light, movement a screens to praise, encourage, advice and comfort human beings.