Nukes are actually dangerous. AI is mostly just wasteful, fraudulent, and stupid.

Increase the production of guillotines.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

My problem isn’t with the punishment. From an ethics perspective, the framing of insanity as having any normative relevance is simply incorrect.

The relevant facts are causal and intentional.

But then again, the average person has the ethics of a baboon, so this is academic.

The whole concept of being able to claim insanity as a defense comes from a time when people literally thought you could be possessed by demons.

Murdering children is an act of insanity. Always. That’s not a defense, it’s a given.

When evaluating the morality of an action, you must consider the causal and intentional facts.

Everything else, such as mental illness, either supervenes on these causal and intentional facts or it is irrelevant.

1. Did the person kill innocent children? Yes.
2. Did they intend to do so? Also yes.

Whether that person subsumed alcohol or whether they are mentally ill simply does not matter except insofar as it relates to the two questions above.

If you disagree with any specific sentence above, please tell me which one. All of the replies are currently non-sequiturs and red herrings.

Because what made you upset was the denial that “all humans are persons.” Since you had no problem with the claim that “not all animals are persons,” you must believe there’s something special about Homo sapiens.

Here, look:

• Is a wonderful good dog a person? Yes.
• What about a rabid dog that bites children? No.

Likewise,

• Is a wonderful good human a person? Yes.
• What about a nazi that kills children? No.
• What about a human zombie? Also, no.

But this conclusion is unacceptable to you. It’s almost as if the “species” matters. I am attempting to disabuse you of that belief.

Dehumanization is a concern when some humans believe that moral consideration is grounded in one’s humanity. It is not. Every sentient creature is worthy of moral consideration, even nazis. They are human, too, but this is not a compliment; it is a biological fact.

If you are one of these humans who believe that your species (as opposed to your sentience) grants you inalienable rights, then yes, I can see why dehumanization would concern you.

Do all humans possess rationality then? What in your view is personhood, exactly?

Personhood is not the right to moral consideration. That is a right of all sentient creatures. So what is it? Have you ever read anything about this before or are you just now discovering the concept?

Your speciecist definition of “person” — whereby every human is automatically entitled to personhood (even Nazis), whereas every elephant or dog is denied personhood (even good ones) — seems grossly out of touch with normative and empirical reality.

1. Not all humans are rational.
2. Not all humans are good.
3. Personhood is a normative concept implying responsibilities and duties.
4. Therefore, not all humans are people, since they might be zombified, psychopathic, or whatever else.

I am kind to all animals, even small ones. They are not people, or even human, but that doesn’t matter.

Personhood is the instantiation of certain transcendental values. Many (if not most) humans in our 200k year history have not been people capable of understanding important things or acting in moral ways. So what? Bears aren’t people either and it doesn’t stop me from being nice to them. Pretending otherwise out of some misplaced sense of inclusivity doesn’t make me a “better” person, as you said — it makes me wrong.

——

By the way, the argument you’re making is a speciesist one, as if all Homo sapiens share a special trait that other animals don’t and denying this fact is “dehumanizing,” whatever that means.

This is incorrect. All animals, including humans, fall somewhere on a spectrum: for kindness, for intelligence, for their ability to love, etc. Some combination of these traits is called “personhood” and grants you special responsibilities and considerations — for example, my willingness to take your ethical opinions seriously, as I’m doing now, for you.

What part of “Nazis are human” is dehumanizing?

I’m not sure what has to malfunction in the brain or soul of any animal (human or otherwise) to become a Nazi, but it robs them of personhood, which is why they’re dangerous. There are dolphins, elephants, and other animals that I’d consider akin to people, and some humans I wouldn’t.

They’re human, sure, and all humans are animals. Of course, not all humans are people.