I got a job to find a robot that thinks its Human and retrun it to its owner. `No problem`, says I and off I go.

But along the way i`m hit by a woman who goes on that it`s `Human` and has feelings, etc, etc and I`m made to feel guilty about returning it.

I play a GOOD character, but this always gets me.


I don`t feel guilty! It`s not Human. It`s not alive. It`s just an extremely glorified calculator.

I kinda get annoyed by this cos it reminds me of extreme political correctness like you get in StarTrek next Gen..., "Oh should we let this Hologram live out its life or should we switch it off to save power and therfore we get to where we need to go? But if we put it away we violate its rights, "Oh look it`s crying holographic tears!".

"It`s a hologram switch the damn thing off!" In fact i`d have gone round the back and already unplugged the plug while they were debating. Same with Data.

So, I`m sorry, Mr. Robot that thinks it`s alive must go back to Daddy! When I find it!

The game will tell you that the devs think that doing this is evil. So do I, personally, but that's beside the point. In other quests, I disagree with the devs and their ethical views just as you do in this case.


But you got to do what you want to do. You will run into plenty of other quests that will allow you to recover your karma level back to "good", so don't worry.

My class had this kind of discussion in biology. What is alive? According to biology, only something with cell(s) is alive, because the cell is the smallest thing that has a metabolism. A virus is not alive. It is actually as close to "undead" as you can get. What I think is stupid is if I create artificial algae that does everything algae does, it would still be considered not alive (even if as small as algae). Why? Because I made it. To me, if something meets all the criteria of being alive save the "cell" argument, then it is alive. For the android, it is about being self-aware. A Protectron is not self-aware. It is a tool. That android is self-aware. It is not a tool. Slavery is slavery. What does being human have to do with being alive or slavery? A slave is self aware, a tool is not. The argument about whether someone could be a slave was/is based on skin color, race/ethnicity, or religion. "They don't count because they are not like us. They don't think like "people" do. They are sub-human."

Zimmer and the Commonwealth would have saved themselves lots of problems if they hadn't made the androids self aware. Give the android the programming it needs to do a job. No need for reasoning or self awareness. They decided to play God and now have to deal with their creations rebelling against them. Luckily for them, the androids only want to run away. Who knows, maybe we will get Fallout: Commonwealth - Terminator. The Commonwealth Androids could be a new faction, and threat to humanity.

Interesting response actually.

The thing is, I think if Humans thought they could make a robot that was capable of self awareness and guilt, we would do it. It`s our failing. We know we shouldn`t because it`ll probabaly lead to something bad, but we`ll do it because, as you say we must `play God`. No matter what the consequences.

As for returning the robot, the only way I could see it morally wrong would be in the same way as taking a fluffy doll from a 2 year old girl and she starts crying. You`re not doing anything wrong to the fluffy doll, but making the girl cry is wrong. So I guess you could say that if someone loved that robot and saw it as Human and she was sad because you scrapped it, THEN it would be wrong because you upset a Human being. But what if you had to take the fluffy doll because it was bad for her and she cried? that wouldn`t be wrong...

Now my head is getting confused... :sadvaultboy:


Screw that- It`s still going back!

Oh and my ability to spell `returning` seemed to have momentarily vanished earlier.

Isn't Zimmer just an android too?

Maybe you should kill Zimmer instead. Don't think there was any bad karma for that?

Is her fluffy doll self aware? Besides, it is two separate things. Taking a child's doll is not the same as the doll leaving on its own. By your reasoning, ghouls and supermutants do not count because they are not human. Enslaving them would be fine. They could not be slaves because they are not human.

Riddle me this: if Zimmer weren't offering the reward, would you turn the android into him?

Have you accepted the android's gift? If so, how do you justify turning the android into Zimmer? Tools cannot give gifts.

OK.

Is self awareness proof of being alive and deserving rights? Must you be alive to have rights? If they are not alive does that make them exempt from the rules of a living being?

This robot is not alive. It is not dead but it is not living, but has `self-awarenes`.

Well, first of all, the most annoying NPC in the entire game is Victoria Watts, the woman who approached you to help him. So, that's one strike against him in my opinion. If she supports him, maybe we shouldn't.

But, even with that against him I don't turn him in to Zimmer. I like the robot more than I like Zimmer. The robot seems more human than Zimmer (or Watts for that matter) and he's certainly better looking than Zimmer. Besides, I still manage to get everything I want out of the quest.

I don't care if he has rights. If he was as irritating as Watts I'd kill him every time. Oh, well, that's not entirely true. I'd complete the quest in the way necessary to get the reward I want.

Oh, so I guess my final conclusion is this: I don't care if he has rights, I just want that reward.

What gave you that idea?

This idea is floated around sometimes because when you kill him you find a component in his inventory.

You should read the I Robot books!

Now we are back to what is alive. According to biology, to be alive something must interact with its environment, have respiration (metabolism/eat), and procreate. My professor and I went around and around with this. If I made the artificial algae that did all this he first said, no it isn't alive because you used inorganic materials (metal/plastic) to make it. Then if I made it from organic material it was still no because I made it. It didn't happen naturally. By this argument test tube babies, invitro fertilization babies, and clones are not alive. The only thing we don't know about the android is if it can procreate or not. Some things make more of themselves by combining parts of themselves with others in a non sixual manner. So six being required for procreation won't work. Bottom line is part of the original (genetic material) must be used to make offspring. The definition of what contitutes genetic material (how it can originate) causes more trouble. Genetic material is not alive. It is the equivalent of a computer program. Instead of 1s and 0s you have A, T, C, G. So if the android can make more androids by combining part of itself (genetic code) with something else it is procreating. The android interacts with its environment and it eats. Once again the only thing we don't know about is if it can procreate.

Self awareness is not proof of being alive. Single cell organisms and most animals are not self aware. Self awareness in this argument only determines if something can be a slave or not, and have rights. If you are forced to do something against your will you are a slave. If something is self aware it does deserve rights. If it can say no I don't want to be your slave, it should have the right to not be a slave. Same if it can express this desire in another way - in case someone wants to throw in something that can't talk.

The argument that Zimmer made it so he can say the android will be a slave does not apply because the android is self aware. If that argument applies then your biological parents can make you do whatever they want because they made you.

I think therefore I am. The key word there is "I".

Philosophy can be truly disturbing and troublesome.

This is the normal human response.


I, too, think Victoria is annoying. I chalk it up to her being a zealot for her cause. I wonder if she is an android.

The character I play determines the outcome of that quest and whether or not Victoria lives.

Philosophy is annoying, I know, and there`s never a clear answer. This raises more questions I`d love to debate, but I`ll stay to the point hopefully.

I think you are mistaken to say that test tube babies, invitro fertilization babies, and clones are the result of us creating life. I think I understand what your Professor means. In the this case we are not creating life we are simply transporting about the prerequisites of life that would already be life and setting them into motion. How can I explain this another way? It`s a bit like grabbing all the parts of a car we found, putting it together and thinking we `made` the car. All we did really was take what was already there and put it togther. We didn`t really make it- We assembled it. We didn`t really create life, we assembled it and let nature do the rest. This is why even Parents do not qualify as owning their children as, technically, they did not create the life, they just followed a process that allowed Nature to do the creating.

As for what constitutes life, the `interact with its environment, have respiration (metabolism/eat), and procreate` is an interesting rule that I did not know.

The procreation question is key in my view and I don`t agree taking parts of itself and putting it something else (outside of actual six) is valid. This guy apparently thinks he`s real so his only means to procreate will be to try and have six. When that fails to create life he will then have failed to qualify as a living being (though he would not know why).

Hope I`m making sense.


Anyway, that`s my thoughts on this interesting discussion.

lol. I think it's the normal gamer's response. This isn't RL that we are discussing so I don't find the discussion of his imaginary rights very compelling. I like Harkness well enough as a character. He's boring, but he's cute and I see no reason to turn him in if I don't have to. Plus Zimmer is annoying and rude to me. But whether or not Harkness has rights takes second place to whether or not I can get his weapon; which I think is the best overall weapon in the game. I can do both and he doesn't have to die so I always play it like that, but, if I had to kill him for it I absolutely would if I was playing an EW character.


Edit: I want to clarify something. I'd kill him because I don't like him enough not to. He has the same rights in my mind as any NPC, which is none. They are all there to live and die as I want them to. I don't kill some of them, ever, because I like them too much to do so, but other ones can be killed or not and I just don't care and others I like to kill because I don't like them at all (like Victoria Watts).

Very interesting indeed.

I do not think that being 'alive' is the important thing here. After all, a plant is alive but the same arguments would not apply.

Self awareness is the key here. We would pick a flower (essentially killing it) but would not kill a human. At least, I would hope not.

Self awareness is what makes us human. Recognising the world around us, and our impact on it, and it on us, is all part of what makes us who we are. Being alive is not the point - a plant is alive, a hamster is alive, the key is intelligence, borne out of self awareness. Self awareness is what gives us desires and needs beyond the base animal instincts that keep us alive. It makes us human, and that is the whole point of this quest.

If Harkness is self aware, as I believe he is, then that would make turning him in a morally evil act. But this is open to interpretation as it's impossible to know what us going on in another person's head, even that of an android. This is why this quest is so interesting.

In my view, Harkness is self aware because he cares about his own personal survival. Given the choice, he would choose not to die, and would choose personal freedom over servitude.

What I meant was the normal human response is to do something for reward. I should have clarified that.

It isn't RL, but it relates to real life. Science, philosophy, and theology PHDs are already discussing these things (AI, self awareness, sentience, clones, and rights). The arguments can get nasty.

I agree with you. The self awareness is key. If it was a self aware Protectron I'd feel the same about turning it in.

This quest is just Blade Runner in miniature, but without the http://www.styleofeye.com/images/blade-runner-rick-deckard-pkd-blaster1.gif, sadly.

There we go. What exactly is self awareness?

We know, as Humans how we think. We think on far more levels beyond just the conscous and subconscous, I believe. We perceive on a manner that borders on the `sixth` sense to coin a term, even the thought of a `soul` is a uniquely Human sentient conception.

So how is an android thinking? Just because a robot acts self aware and appears self aware, does not prove it`s self aware? Perhaps it`s wish not to return to its Master is a complex self-defence program that`s just processing `1`s and `0`s, telling itself that it should stay away from its master. Perhaps its reasoning that it did things that made it feel `guilty` are simply complex programmed routines designed to appeal to humans and increase its survival chances?

If I programmed a PC with programmed routines (to make it SEEM self-aware) so well that started talking like it was aware, even saying it was self aware, even becoming belligerent or upset when you were about to turn it off would that mean you`d be evil to continue? Knowing that I programmed it, I`d know exactly what part of its program was kicking in to make say what it said. I`d know what was making it think that it was thinking.

But I`d know it wasn`t thinking or aware really- It was just my programmed routines working well to fool real people.

See where this goes. I think Human beings are truly self-aware- sentient. But can any computer android construct be truly self-aware? I don`t think so.

Now I must run off to work.

Well I was half way through making some points and realised I had typed a bloomin essay! but I think it all came to a few queries I asked myself which I would like to share with you.

Would artificial inteligence or self aware robots be entitled to have human rights? We have animal rights as well, how do animals compare to robots when we talk about self awareness? Perhaps we need to put in place something that gives robots or AI rights as well. Is a self aware robot more alive than an animal that is not self aware?

There is a creation and ownership element here to consider. We create our children and if they get lost we expect our children to be returned to us and this is not evil but good. At what stage does it become wrong to force or expect our children to be returned to us? This may be relevant in the case of Zimmer and Harkness?

Is programming a robot to learn to speak English any different to my parents teaching me English instead of a different language when I was being raised? Aren't we all programmed but just in a different way?

Probably when the children leave of their own volition to escape abuse/slavery, as in the Zimmer/Harkness relationship. Morally, and legally, we are a child's guardian until they can fend for themselves, not 'owner'. Once a child is out of the womb they're a free-willed individual, despite the best efforts of the parents to mold them to their vision.

Harkness isn't a robot, per se, he's a synthetic humanoid; a replicant. He bleeds when he's cut. Whether he was created by sperm meeting an egg or by Dr Frankenstein is irrelevant. He has a free will, a sense of self (cogito ergo sum), and a conscience; so he's human, if he wants to call himself such.

Everytime I've killed Zimmer and his bodyguard I receive an 'android component' from each. I've always thought that to mean that they are indeed androids sent by the commonwealth to collect the runaway, much as the runaway is an android who's job used to be the same.

Perhaps we're arguing the wrong points.

Rivet City is a safe haven providing lodgings and trade to a large number of individuals.

Harkness is head of security and sits on the council.

Perhaps the bad karma for turning him in is due to its affect on the Rivet City community and all the undisputably living members of that community, and has nothing to do with the ethical quandry of the rights of robots.