Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 2251-2255 (13-17 August 2012) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Method of Madness:
I don't think Momo is that cruel.
jmucchiello:
Momo won't do it. She knows better.
T:
--- Quote from: themacnut on 13 Aug 2012, 16:10 ---
--- Quote from: RyanW1019 on 13 Aug 2012, 15:51 ---Don't all of us recieve "morality programming" throughout most of our early life? To some extent, it never really stops, it's just less subtle. And clearly some of us have the free will to do some pretty amoral things, so our own programming is not set in stone; or at least we're capable of ignoring it.
--- End quote ---
The capability to ignore moral programming is why I'm not so quick to blame the parents for a child's, especially a teenager's, criminal behavior. We may call it programming, but we're not robots, we are able to make up our own minds about the morals we're taught. Some decide those morals are crap and do their own thing.
Also, some people never get much moral programming, or get a different set of programming than the rest of us. For example, what kind of moral code do you think a kid growing up in an inner-city family of drug dealers is going to pick up?
--- End quote ---
Part of the "moral programming" is not learned, we are born with it... well, at least most are.
I could give you better sources but I'm lazy so you will get just the first google result
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/robot-altruism/
There are many other "programs" we are born with. People aren't a mass produced equipament with a formated HD just waiting to be programmed.
TheEvilDog:
We know Momo is one of the more "responsible" AnthroPCs in the comic, so she presumably knows there is a big difference between assaulting someone and defending yourself from harassment. As for her pinkie-shock technique, that's trickery, but its also something you see with siblings or some people, where someone says "I'm going to be kicking the air in front of me and if you get in the way it's your own fault." Emily has been warned what will happen but she is still going to try it. Again, that's Emily's own fault.
The Three Laws of QC are probably written up like this;
A robot may not permanent injury to a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm (unless its the human's own fault and the possibility of permanent or fatal injury is negligible).
A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws (unless an individual is causing harm or distress to other human beings).
T:
--- Quote from: TheEvilDog on 13 Aug 2012, 20:35 ---The Three Laws of QC are probably written up like this;
A robot may not permanent injury to a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm (unless its the human's own fault and the possibility of permanent or fatal injury is negligible).
A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws (unless an individual is causing harm or distress to other human beings).
--- End quote ---
You know, that first law still can result in robots taking over the World to protect humans from harming each other... I guess Jeff never stated anything exactly because it is extremely hard to make laws without unwanted effects.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version