|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
The topic of my research project is going to deal with three questions: 1) Can animals be considered persons? 2) Can machines be considered persons? ... I believe that animals and machines cannot be considered persons. ... If I am successful then you will find out that there are no machines or animals that can be considered persons. ... Just because those types of human beings aren’t conscious does not mean that they should not be considered persons. Now I bet your thinking to yourself, well robots and androids can have the external characteristics of a man, woman, or child, and since that they have these characteristics, then you are saying that they can be considered persons. ... What falls under human nature is where I can say that machines and animals cannot be considered persons. ... They could feel happy, sad, dismayed, angry, etc… This underlying feeling is what makes us persons. ... The only way one can be considered a person is if you are the offspring of two persons. What I mean is that if two persons mate and in the result a child is born, then that child is automatically considered a person. Needless to say, a child can be considered the production of two persons. Something else that makes us persons is our ability to communicate, whether it be from speech, sign language, etc… That fact that we have the ability to do this, makes us persons. ... You also have to consider that he was not the product of two persons and therefore cannot be a person. ... There are a lot of views deciding whether or not an animal or machines “think” or “feel”. I believe however that animals can “think” or “feel”, but machines cannot “think” or “feel”. The reason why I define this is to show you that it doesn’t matter if an animal or machine can “think” or “feel”, because they are not the offspring of two persons. ... ” In his lecture he brings up the question, “Are animals aware of being aware?” He later answers his own question by stating that the animals that he observed (chimpanzees) were aware of the presence of their own reflection. ... Obviously I am not saying that the chimpanzees Gallop observed should be considered persons. I am saying that even though these chimpanzees contain this characteristic, that still does not make them persons. ... Since they do not encompass the important or sufficient amounts of the characteristics of humans, they are not considered persons. Since I just proved that Washoe-Delta and AL are not considered persons, they do not have the rights of a person. ... (Artificial Intelligence), there is a company that builds machines (robots) in the form of children. ... The fact that David was not the offspring of two persons also contributes to the fact that David cannot be considered a person. ... Does having these characteristics make these androids persons? ... This is where I can say that these androids are not persons. ... Since they lack emotions and can easily be picked out they cannot be people, because they are obviously manmade machines. ... After showing you a myriad of examples you can come to the conclusion that if you are not an offspring of two persons then you can never be considered a person. I wanted to show you that even though machines (advanced fictional robots and androids) and animals have a lot of common characteristics with those of persons that they still could not be considered persons do to other characteristics or other extremities that they lack.
Approximate Word count = 3315
Approximate Pages = 13.3
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|