Forums » Writing Workshop » Read Thread

Welcome! Here, you will post mind-boggling, moral questions that can be integrated into your storygames. I expect these to be serious, and mature. No foul language please.

If you take human emotions, human thoughts, and human understanding and put it in a robot body, are they still human? 

Would you let people choose if they want to become a cyborg to cure them from cerebral-palsy, or cancer, or autism, even if you knew that everyone would terrorise them for not being human? Who is in the right and who is in the wrong?

I'm not really sure this is "the most sophisticated question."  First I think we need to define what we mean by sophistication.

In answer to your questions, though:

Yes.

Of course, it's their choice. Why will "everyone" terrorize them, though?  I think you're speculating quite a bit.

To whom does this question refer?  I'm guessing you mean the people terrorizing the robots?  The mere fact that you used the word "terrorize" kinda answers the question.

I mean, technically they might not be humans, but that's more a game of semantics. In pretty much every practical use such as whether they deserve rights or respect. I mean, if we have a body in a coma that's brain-dead and we know will stay that way, even though the heart's still pumping blood and the body's still alive, the "person" is dead. I doubt there'd actually be much aggression towards cyborgs or brain in jar type robots, as we've already reached a point where the majority of people respect others for their minds rather than actual physical features.

Moral questions are rarely sophisticated at all. There's Choice A, Choice B, and sometimes a Choice C where you deicde it's not worth the repercussions and leave. Either way, you're hypothetically going to succeed in what you're doing or not doing, and the difficulty of the question comes from how tough it is to call what is and isn't the right choice. The questions are not complex. The input from the ask-ee, and the thought surrounding them, that's complex.

Don't judge my choices. I have a therapist that does that for me.

I always thought she was just being negative until now. :D

This is by no means sophisticated, but I got bored the other night, typed this up and mass sent it out to some friends, hoping a few would bemuse me with a reply.

It's the year 2065 and Earth is being torn apart by natural disasters due to unforeseen planetary effects resulting from terra-formation of the moon, which now hosts a greater population than Earth. You are a top scientist working for Lackluster Industries & Commonwealth Kinsmen - or LICK. LICK has devised a planetary launchable missile that will destroy the moon and end the chaos ravaging Earth. However, Earth would still be able to support a small living population without the destruction of the moon, albeit via small isolated living centers and limited resources. As an integral part of R&D for the project, you are guaranteed status as a hero and positions of power, wealth and comfort once the moon is destroyed. If you interfere, you condemn the Earth to a post-apocalyptic fate and will be forced to struggle for survival in the waste, but you will save countless innocents on the moon - though they will never know if your heroism. What do you do?

That’s easy, destroy the moon.

That's certainly the most pragmatic decision and absolutely what I'd expect from you. Some people are just set on playing the hero though.

I received 5 answers so far from the text: 4 for saving the moon, albeit all with different rationales, and 1 for destroying the moon. The moon destroyer wrote a short essay supporting his decision, but his crap-A-tron phone wasn't up to the task of sending it, so I'm not sure of his reasoning.

Can I just evacuate the people on the moon? If not, probably just abandon Earth. I mean, if we've already terra-formed the Moon and have the majority of Mankind on there, might as well move there. I assume Earth's probably screwed by Global Warming, as well.

A few people wanted to save the moon, betray LICK, condemn the Earthlings and flee to the moon. But the premise is intended to eliminate escape from Earth as an option. And there were other more or less creative attempts to squirt the choice. But that defeats the purpose of the thought experiment. The idea is this is a time sensitive situation, and you have to act now one way or the other immediately. So you have limited options, but the justification for the decision is entirely up to the individual. No one has given the same rationale to this point. The themes behind the rationale haven't even really been particularly similar.

I figured by saving the Earth, I was being the hero.

Along with some of the concerns Sentinel had, I seriously don’t see WHY I should save the moon. There is absolutely no incentive.

For all I know the Luna people are a bunch of elitist assholes who look down on Earth because the moon isn’t all fucked up by natural disasters. In fact I imagine that most of the rich corporate elite are there leading cushy lives seeing as they would be the first to go there as soon as the Earth started getting all fucked up.

Meanwhile the Terran loyalists are actually toiling and working trying to improve their lot in life by disposing of something that is making life a lot worse for them.

So yeah, fuck the Luna oppressors, rebuild the Earth and go make Mars our bitch instead.

Hooray nationalism!!! Or... Eh, planetarianism!!! Something ism!!!

I like how you and Sentinel took it and framed the scope. I was hoping it'd be vague enough in details to get a wide range of interpretations and viewpoints. Though, looking at it now, I can see a rhetorical narrative bias in frame. Either way you're a hero to some, even if they don't know it, and a villain to others.

Largely irrelevant -- If anyone is interested, I adapted the question with the tweaking of some aspects from a short story I've been working on... or fighting with at any rate. Anyway, my scope is a little mashed up because I keep thinking of the question in regards to the story's dynamics.

Pff! The only people who could consider me a villain at that point would be very dead!

Clarifying - 'Rhetorical narrative bias in frame' => in regards to my initial framing of the scenario.

Assuming the moon hasn't been transformed into Earth II at this point, human civilization would only have a finite existence on the moon, since earth is where all the special resources are. Everyone's quality of life would be much better if the Moon was taken out. Not to mention all the problems with muscle weakness and internal complications that would come with spending your life on the moon, and how much it would cost in time and money to find medical ways to counteract that... Which you would need Earth's resources for... Next time we decide to do this kind of shit, we should do it on Mars.

No way!  Moon forever!

Utilitarian argument:  You already stated, more people live on the Moon than on Earth. Therefore, the greatest potential happiness is to keep the moon people alive and awesome.

Scientific argument:  If we destroyed the moon, the earth would be destroyed as well.  From my limited research, the lack of a moon would eliminate the tides, killing everything that lives in the water.  It would also throw the earth's rotation off balance, and we'd all be killed by natural disasters anyway.

Unscientific argument:  Even after the moon blows up, Earth sounds pretty crappy.  

Aesthetic argument:  The moon is pretty.

Antagonist argument: Why not blow up both?

Why not blow up the sun as well?

I heard people complaining about the name. What should I rename the forum?

You must be new here.

You must be very familiar with the site, then.

Yes, I am new, which is why I haven't published anything yet. Why?

On CYS, complaining does not look anything like any post you may have seen here. Complaining here is very often expletive-laced and sarcasm and arguments are sometimes brought along in its wake. And you also can't edit anything that's been replied to, so time keeps consistent.