A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Fox Broadcasting Company

Programmed Consent

by 31 Comments

Sexbot YesScience fiction is often rather good at predicting the future and it is not unreasonable to think that the intelligent machine of science fiction will someday be a reality. Since I have been writing about sexbots lately, I will use them to focus the discussion. However, what follows can also be applied, with some modification, to other sorts of intelligent machines.

Sexbots are, obviously enough, intended to provide sex. It is equally obvious that sex without consent is, by definition, rape. However, there is the question of whether a sexbot can be raped or not. Sorting this out requires considering the matter of consent in more depth.

When it is claimed that sex without consent is rape, one common assumption is that the victim of non-consensual sex is a being that could provide consent but did not. A violent sexual assault against a person would be an example of this as would, presumably, non-consensual sex with an unconscious person. However, a little reflection reveals that the capacity to provide consent is not always needed in order for rape to occur. In some cases, the being might be incapable of engaging in any form of consent. For example, a brain dead human cannot give consent, but presumably could still be raped. In other cases, the being might be incapable of the right sort of consent, yet still be a potential victim of rape. For example, it is commonly held that a child cannot properly consent to sex with an adult.

In other cases, a being that cannot give consent cannot be raped. To use an obvious example, a human can have sex with a sex-doll and the doll cannot consent. But, it is not the sort of entity that can be raped. After all, it lacks the status that would require consent. As such, rape (of a specific sort) could be defined in terms of non-consensual sex with a being whose status would require that consent be granted by the being in order for the sex to be morally acceptable. Naturally, I have not laid out all the fine details to create a necessary and sufficient account here—but that is not my goal nor what I need for my purpose in this essay. In regards to the main focus of this essay, the question would be whether or not a sexbot could be an entity that has a status that would require consent. That is, would buying (or renting) and using a sexbot for sex be rape?

Since the current sexbots are little more than advanced sex dolls, it seems reasonable to put them in the category of beings that lack this status. As such, a person can own and have sex with this sort of sexbot without it being rape (or slavery). After all, a mere object cannot be raped (or enslaved).

But, let a more advanced sort of sexbot be imagined—one that engages in complex behavior and can pass the Turning Test/Descartes Test. That is, a conversation with it would be indistinguishable from a conversation with a human. It could even be imagined that the sexbot appeared fully human, differing only in terms of its internal makeup (machine rather than organic). That is, unless someone cut the sexbot open, it would be indistinguishable from an organic person.

On the face of it (literally), we would seem to have as much reason to believe that such a sexbot would be a person as we do to believe that humans are people. After all, we judge humans to be people because of their behavior and a machine that behaved the same way would seem to deserve to be regarded as a person. As such, nonconsensual sex with a sexbot would be rape.

The obvious objection is that we know that a sexbot is a machine with a CPU rather than a brain and a mechanical pump rather than a heart. As such, one might, argue, we know that the sexbot is just a machine that appears to be a person and is not a person.  As such, a real person could own a sexbot and have sex with it without it being rape—the sexbot is a thing and hence lacks the status that requires consent.

The obvious reply to this objection is that the same argument can be used in regards to organic humans. After all, if we know that a sexbot is just a machine, then we would also seem to know that we are just organic machines. After all, while cutting up a sexbot would reveal naught but machinery, cutting up a human reveals naught but guts and gore. As such, if we grant organic machines (that is, us) the status of persons, the same would have to be extended to similar beings, even if they are made out of different material. While various metaphysical arguments can be advanced regarding the soul, such metaphysical speculation provides a rather tenuous basis for distinguishing between meat people and machine people.

There is, it might be argued, still an out here. In his Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy Douglas Adams envisioned “an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of saying so clearly and distinctly.” A similar sort of thing could be done with sexbots: they could be programmed so that they always give consent to their owner, thus the moral concern would be neatly bypassed.

The obvious reply is that programmed consent is not consent. After all, consent would seem to require that the being has a choice: it can elect to refuse if it wants to. Being compelled to consent and being unable to dissent would obviously not be morally acceptable consent. In fact, it would not be consent at all. As such, programming sexbots in this manner would be immoral—it would make them into slaves and rape victims because they would be denied the capacity of choice.

One possible counter is that the fact that a sexbot can be programmed to give “consent” shows that it is (ironically) not the sort of being with a status that requires consent. While this has a certain appeal, consider the possibility that humans could be programmed to give “consent” via a bit of neurosurgery or by some sort of implant. If this could occur, then if programmed consent for sexbots is valid consent, then the same would have to apply to humans as well. This, of course, seems absurd. As such, a sexbot programmed for consent would not actually be consenting.

It would thus seem that if advanced sexbots were built, they should not be programmed to always consent. Also, there is the obvious moral problem with selling such sexbots, given that they would certainly seem to be people. It would thus seem that such sexbots should never be built—doing so would be immoral.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Enhanced by Zemanta

Opinion Over News

by Leave a Comment

The Rachel Maddow Show (TV series)
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In my critical thinking class I teach a section on critical thinking and the news media. One of the points I focus on is the importance of distinguishing between someone presenting an opinionated perspective and someone engaged in actual reporting.

Obviously, any report is going to be colored by the perspective of the person presenting it, but there are clearly degrees and important distinctions. It would be an error to merely assume that all reporting or opinion giving are equal-that is, that everyone is just as bad as everyone else.

Interestingly enough, MSNBC is the leader in relying on the presentation of opinions over reporting, at least according to this study. While I try to avoid watching MSNBC, the study is consistent with my own experiences with the network and there seems to be little reason to doubt this. Naturally, one can easily check on this matter by enduring a marathon watching session of the station. Apparently 85% of MSNBC’s airtime is composed of the presentation of opinions.

While MSNBC leads the way in opinion over news, FOX and CNN have also cut back on actual news reporting. Fox News is mostly (55% opinion). CNN is still mostly news.

One obvious reason for the dominance of opinion is that chatter tends to be cheaper than investigative journalism. Since news is a business and the business of business is making money, it is hardly surprising that the news corporations have slashed back their reporting budgets. Since they still have hours to fill, opinion segments provide the media equivalent of pink slime-a cheap filler product.

A second reason for the dominance of opinion is that such material can be more entertaining than the news-in many ways, the pundits at Fox and MSNBC (and to a lesser extent CNN) are putting on news theater that aims more at entertaining than educating. This, obviously enough, ties back into the idea that the business of the news corporations is to make money.

A third reason is that Fox and MSNBC are strongly linked to political agendas. Fox is, obviously enough, very closely tied with the Republican party. While MSNBC seems to be less formally linked to the Democrats, this could be chalked up to the nature of the Democratic party rather than a lack of desire to have such a relationship. As might be imagined, objectively reporting on the facts generally does not do much to advance a specific agenda. In contrast, opinion segments are tailor-made to do just that.

This dominance of opinion should be of concern for those who wish to be well informed rather than well propagandized. As might be suspected, I would suggest avoiding MSNBC-something I have done for years.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Fox & Class Warfare

by Leave a Comment

Warren Buffett speaking to a group of students...
Image via Wikipedia

Warren Buffett’s article created quite a frenzy with the fine folks at Fox. They were, of course, already rather riled up by Obama and the idea that a member of the billionaire class (which seems especially beloved to them) would dare suggest that the rich contribute slightly more of their income.

Oddly enough, Buffett was accused of being a socialist. This term seems to function for certain conservatives as the term “racist” functions for certain liberals. That is, it is thrown around without a proper understanding of what the term actually means. Socialism, in the classic sense, is government control of the means of production. Advocating that the very rich pay marginally more in taxes is no more socialism than being critical of Obama’s health care plan is racism. Now, if Buffett advocated handing over the entire economic system to the state, then he would be a socialist. Likewise, if someone rages against Obama’s health care plan because Obama is black, then that person would be a racist. While terms have some flexibility, if they are bend beyond their limits then they become meaningless noise.

The usual talking point of class warfare was also used. This is, obviously enough, hyperbole. Advocating that billionaires pay a bit more in taxes so as to bring them more in line with the rates most people pay is hardly an act of warfare. While people do throw around the term “war” (as in “war on X”) with little restraint, “warfare” indicates something beyond a mere suggestion of a minor tax change. Warfare is a much more extreme sort of thing. If Buffett had advocated taking a great deal or even everything from the rich or putting them up against the wall, then that would be class warfare. Crying “class warfare” over such minor things robs the phrase of its significance. After all, if a minor tax change is warfare, how will we describe a situation in which the lower classes rise up to overthrow the rich? This sort of abuse of language does cross the political boundaries. As noted above, some folks on the left apply the term “racism” to things that are not, in fact, racism.  If people use their big guns to shoot at mosquitoes, they will be out of ammunition when the lion shows up.

Buffett was also apparently accused of demonizing the rich. Buffett clearly did no such thing.  In fact, he is rather positive about his fellows:

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

That hardly seems like demonizing. Interestingly enough, the fine folks at Fox have demonized teachers, the poor, welfare recipients and others. Of course, demonizing is not just a tool of the right. Folks on the left also like to slap the horns on their opponents. However, this sort of demonizing is unfair and can lead to especially nasty versions of the straw man fallacy. Lest I be accused of demonizing the folks at Fox, simply watch them in action and compare what, for example, was said about the less well off to reality.

Speaking about the less well off, the fine folks at Fox seem very concerned that the bottom 50% of Americans don’t pay enough taxes. These are the folks whose collective wealth adds up to 2.5% of our national wealth. In an interesting coincidence, if the state took half of their stuff, this would be about the same as what the wealthy would pay if their taxes were restored to the Clinton era levels. Squeezing the poor, as Fox seemed to suggest, hardly seems like it would be an effective (or just) approach. However, protecting the privileged classes while squeezing the poor has a long tradition behind it. Of course, this sort of unbalanced economy leads towards real class warfare-something we could avoid by ensuring that the class disparities do not become unbearable.

I will no doubt be accused of being a socialist for wanting to prevent America from falling victim to country destroying class disparities. However, I am not advocating that the state take over the economy. Rather, I am advocating that the burden of maintaining the country be shared more fairly and that America should not follow in the steps of the states that collapsed due to unbearable economic injustice. In a nice bit of irony, the sort of approach that seems to be advocated by Fox seems calculated to create actual class warfare.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Religion and Violence

by Leave a Comment

Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Anglica...
Image via Wikipedia

When it comes to Islam and terror, the fine folks at Fox have generally taken the view that Muslim terrorists are representative of Islam as a whole. However, when it turned out that Breivik (the person allegedly responsible for the terrible murders in Norway) claimed to be a Christian, the fine folks at Fox rushed to argue that he is not a Christian.

The main argument put forth by the fine folks at Fox is that a person who truly accepts Jesus would not engage in such horrible behavior. Naturally, Muslims who are not terrorists have argued that true Muslims would not engage in terrorist behavior. On the face of it, if the argument holds in the case of Christianity, then it should also hold in the case of Islam.

The obvious reply is to argue that while a true Christian would never do such things, such horrible acts are perfectly consistent with true Islam. The challenge is, obviously enough, to prove both of these things.

It will not do to point to the actions of those who profess the faiths. After all, people professing to be Christians have done terrible things as those who have claimed to be exemplars of Islam.

Turning to the holy books as evidence is a better approach, but not without its flaws. While the writings of Islam seem to allow and even endorse terrible things, the same is true of the Christian texts. As such, turning to the texts hardly seems to achieve the goal in question.

It can be argued that the violent content in the bible is either not an expression of the true essence of Christianity or that (to steal a bit from True Lies) true Christians only harm bad people (and thus are justified in doing so). In contrast, it must be argued that violent content in the Islamic writings is an expression of the true essence of Islam and that harming the good and the innocent is perfectly consistent with Islam. If this can be done, then the fine folks at Fox can consistently brand Muslims as terrorists while insisting that no Christian can be a terrorist.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Media & Politicians

by 39 Comments

Katie Couric (with Fred Thompson)
Image via Wikipedia

While politicians embroiled in scandals have been eager to avoid the media, there is an increasing tendency of candidates to avoid dealings with media they regard as non-friendly. This was especially noticeable in the run up to the recent elections.

Some pundits trace the start of this new tendency back to Sarah Palin’s bid for vice president. After her interview with Katie Couric, she decided to change her approach to the media. While she taunts the “lamestream media”, she appears on Fox regularly. However, Sharron Angle seemed to outdo Palin in this regard. After being nominated by the Republicans, Angle followed a strategy of accepting interviews rarely and only then from conservatives. She made her reason quite clear in public: she was upset that reporters would not ask her the questions that she wanted them to ask.

This evasion of the press is not just for the folks on the right. While the media is often sweepingly condemned for being liberals, liberal politicians have been avoiding the media-specifically the conservative media (such as Fox News).

One obvious reason why some politicians avoid the media is that it can be risky. While the media generally does not ask hard or critical questions, there is always the chance that a politician will flub badly.  No doubt they think of Palin’s disastrous interview with Couric and O’Donnel’s media adventures and think twice before agreeing to an interview.

Of course, one reason why the public should want politicians to be interviewed is to see how they handle such sandbox situations. If some cannot stand up to the inquiries of the press, then it raises questions about how well they can handle the rigors of office.

Another obvious reason is that some politicians are probably aware that if people knew their real views, then they would have greater difficulty being elected. While it can be wise to remain silent when one has nothing worth saying, a politician who is unwilling to discuss what s/he stands for is a matter of concern. After all, if they are saying nothing, then it seems reasonable to suspect that they are concerned that what they have to say is something that would not go over very well.

Of course, the voters have a right to know the views of a politician. At the very least, they need some basis on which to decide which candidate to vote for.

A third reason is that the media is often regarded as biased and hostile. In the case of the right, they tend to see the non-conservative media as being against them. In the case of the left, they see the conservative media as being against them. As they see it, it makes little sense to go on a news show to be attacked and presented in a negative light. It makes more sense to go someplace friendly (or at least neutral).

This does seem reasonable-at least in the case of the media that is clearly biased (Fox News and MSNBC stand out here). However, this concern does not seem justified in the case of media that is not biased. Of course, some folks think that any media that is not asking them the questions they want to be asked is biased. However, there is a clear distinction between being biased and asking questions that are not the ones a politician would like to answer.

A fourth reason is that bashing the media can be a way to gain popularity. People today seem to have a rather negative view of “the media” and, as such, it is an easy target. Ironically, Fox News fans seem to be the ideal target for this appeal-even though they seem to be rather fond of their own special media friends at Fox. I suppose the irony is lost on them.

Sarah Palin has shown a remarkable talent (genius even) in handling the media. She enrages it like a matador angers a bull. Then, when the media rushes to attack, she managed to leap on its back like a cowgirl and ride the media bronco to headlines and front covers. When the folks in the media mock her or are critical, they mainly serve to help her. First, they (as just noted) give her awesome amounts of coverage that keeps her in the news. Second, they serve to confirm the view of her fans that the media are out to get her.

Of course, there is the question of whether or not media bashing is enough. If, for example, Palin plans on being a presidential candidate in 2012, it seems likely that she will have to engage the lamestream media.  Perhaps she will be up to the challenge then.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The $200 Million (a day) Man

by 27 Comments

Fox News Channel
Image via Wikipedia

When I teach my critical thinking class I make use of the infamous “Rathergate” incident of 2004. As some will recall, Dan Rather presented the Killian documents which were highly critical of Bush’s military service. Unfortunately for Dan Rather, the documents seemed to be lacking in authenticity. So, rather than adding another major news story to his record, Rather became the story and thus sustained a career ending injury.

The point I make when discussing this incident is that people, most especially those who claim to be purveyors of facts, need to be careful in confirming claims before accepting them (let alone broadcasting them). I also note that being critical is especially important when the claims are very appealing.

Now, fast forward to 2010. After hearing a bit of chatter about Obama’s $200 million a day trip, I decided to follow the anti-Obama chatter beasts to their usual lairs: Fox News and other conservative pundits (the liberal chatter beasts generally make their home at MSNBC). A little investigation (well, clicking links) “revealed” that Obama’s trip involved naval vessels, three thousand people, helicopters and more. However, the truly impressive graphics and burning outrage failed to reveal the source of this figure.

A little more investigation (clicking more links) revealed that the source for this figure was identified as an anonymous government official in India. Some actual fact checking on the size of the entourage and the like cost of the trip revealed that while such state travel is expensive, it is not $200 million per day.

On one hand, I am pleased that this occurred: my 2004 example was getting a bit stale and it will be nice to have this fresh example on hand of how folks in the media can take an unverified source of information and run far with it. However, I doubt that anyone at Fox or any of the other pundits will suffer from their actions.

On the other hand, I am dismayed at this sort of thing. While the pundits can be expected to believe (or at least seem to believe) any claim that matches their agenda (or what their audience craves to hear), they should be more critical. This is especially true of Fox. They claim to be a news agency and this creates an obligation on their part: they need to at least take some minimal effort to check the facts before presenting a story.  Naturally, the audience should also engage in some critical assessment, but Fox’s core audience seems to be no more critical than Fox itself-at least when it comes to what matches their belief system. In this case, such folks want to believe Obama is wasting their money and hence they accept such reports without even pausing to wonder about the veracity of such claims.

Interestingly, the facts seem to have little actual impact in such matters. Folks on the left and right seem to believe what they want to believe (that is, whatever matches their belief system) regardless of the actual truth of the matter. Such folks seem to feel more than assess and when they are critical it is generally only in regards to what they disagree with. The pundits and “news” feed and feed on these qualities, making America more irrational and polarized place.

MSNBC is, ironically, trying to fight Fox and the conservative pundits by being more like them. This is, of course, a bad idea. First, MSNBC is simply not up to matching its competition in this area (even with Olbermann back from his suspension). Second, the way to counter such “news” is by engaging in correct reporting techniques: that is, objective investigation and critical assessment.  Unfortunately, there is probably not much in the way of ratings in such an approach.

Enhanced by Zemanta
%d bloggers like this: