Yes, that is correct. But they still do not have the same degree of sapience that we have. A chimpansee can be compared with a clever toddler.

I do not believe we are that special at all. Consciousness comes in gradations. Evolution has ensured humans are good at exactly two things. We are the best endurance sprinters on the planet and we are the best at using our advanced sapience in a means that allows us to create a society. That is, we have developed extelligence, the means to store our intelligence outside of our brains, in books, the internet and so on. It is this extelligence that has allowed us to create our society, because we do not have to invent everything from scratch anymore every time a clever person dies and our methods of teaching knowledge to others is no longer limited to how many people one person who has knowledge can teach.

so it is ok to own a clever toddler?

and at what age exactly does the ownership right end?

Humans are certainly capable of it, but that doesn't mean we should allow it.

I honestly don't know why you'd think I'd have a problem with that scenario, seeing as restoring his memory is what I did. I didn't turn him in. If he wants to make amends for what he did in the past, more power to him. If he doesn't, that's a bit wrong, but being a person means pursuing your own destiny, not doing what's right. I just think it's wrong for him to forget everything to make his life easier.

I wouldn't want to see Harkness (and just so we're clear: I draw distinction between "Harkness," the figment we meet when we first arrive in Rivet City, and Harkness, A3-21 going by the name) again, but I also don't like that woman from the Railroad either. The only Railroad character I want to see again is Herbert Daring Dashwood.

But like I said earlier, I want this to be less an Institute v Railroad thing and more of a Institute v Institute thing, with different people in the Institute arguing over the rights of synths and whatnot.

I'm easily in the "it's not unethical" camp. Humans are biologically living things. That's where I draw the line. Androids are synthetic, created specifically to be able to mimic us. But at the end of the day, they are not living beings. Whatever their capacity for thought and emotion, I would rather see a hundred androids enslaved by the Institute than even one real living human.

I'd love a radical synth faction that views everything as a machine and fully embraces their artificial superiority (at least perceived). They wouldn't give themselves names, but numbers. They would despise procreation by any other means than replication. They would enslave humans. Their goal would be the conquest of the Institute to begin replicating on their own and steadily surpass humanity as the dominant species.

The majority of normal synths however would oppose (or don't care about) that faction and instead either fight for freedom (boring, should no longer be a theme), try to live a normal human life or embrace their superiority and steal jobs, ruining the economy. These last synths, the rich and famous ones, the prosttutes and mercenaries above all the imperfect humans, those would be the most interesting imo. Of course they'd face prejudice, but not like ghouls who are outcasts.

You've got people who are role playing in this thread and then you have the people who are looking at it from their own real world perspective.

The question is irrelevant. Unlike an advanced android a chimpansee will never achieve the degree of sapience that would make owning them immoral.

Hello,

First off, I have to say that the discussions have been very interesting to me. I was a bit surprised that it ended up as close as it is. So, I have a couple questions for you all, the first half being technical. In Fallout 3 when we met the Railroad and Institute it was decided that siding with the Railroad/Harkness was the "good" option while siding with the Institute was the "bad" option. Do you think the karma is going to be split this way again or will Bethesda not reward or take away karma for picking sides. Also, if FO4 does reward and subtract karma will this "break" immersion for you? As in, you're trying to play a "good guy" so to speak, who always helps out those in need, but who doesn't think androids can become sentient and sides with the Institute, if the game arbitrarily gives you negative karma for doing so when you don't think there's anything wrong with it would you be upset?

And now for the more philosophical half:

1)For those who support the Railroad/androids, if there was a sentient android, one who wants freedom from the Institute, but then has it's body destroyed, mind wiped/reprogrammed and then uploaded into a new body (a Mr. Handy) and spends all day guarding a armory spouting prerecorded lines would it lose it's sentience?

2)For those who support the Institute/humans, let's say that when Howard reaches Vault 111, instead of going inside and being cryogenically frozen, instead he blacks out from the blast and is hit by a ton of radiation, to the point where he'll either die of radiation poisoning or turn to a ghoul. While unconscious, he's taken inside the Vault and instead of given some Radaway the Vault scientists scan/map his brain and then download him onto a identical android body. To the point where, hundreds of years later, he wakes up and thinks that he's the same as before - he does not look, think or feel any different.

1. Is he a human now in a new synthetic body?

2. Is he a android that mistakenly believes that he's human and the original Howard is dead?

a) And if this is how you think and feel about it - that he's now just a machine - does that mean that you will willingly have your avatar enslave himself under the Institute? Since he's just a machine anyway?

If an android is a sentient AI, then by definition it isn't an android since the definition of an android is a robot designed to look like and mimic humans, so its not unethical to own an android no matter how advanced it is.....a sentient AI whatever its form however, thats a different question since you are then talking about owning a sentient lifeform rather than a machine meant to mimic our form.

Can it be restored in any way? Can it recall anything about what it was?

I'm just baffled at why the Institute decided to give their Synths the ability to think and rationalize like humans and are then surprised when some of them decide they're sick of being owned like property. C'mon, there's evil and there's stupid evil. May as well have Zimmer stroke a fully-grown mustache while stroking a white cat.

V My response in Bold V

Well, for the sake the argument, let's say that the memories can't be restored. More than that, if you were the android's previous companion or friend, how would you even know upon looking at the Mr. Handy that it used to be the android?

@HeroofKvatch99 Sorry, but I couldn't quote your post since most of your response was in my own quote. First off, I agree. It does seem stupid to not only make androids that are physically but mentally similar to humans and then be surprised when they try to run off. I, personally, hope there's a bit more of a rationalization for why the Institute ended up the way it did besides "Science!"

As for the karma system, while you and your character may personally believe that synths are just machines/property and wouldn't see anything bad with it, others in the Wasteland might. So, maybe instead of karma, Bethesda could regulate the decision to be purely a faction reputation modifier. Find an escaped android and return it to the Institute? They leave your karma only, but it does make the Institute like you better and make the Railroad and other synth-sympathetic factions angry at you.

While I haven't played ME3, I was also thinking about that "doubting if I'm human" trope. So, if you are playing a Howard who finds out that he was secretly a android all along but decides that he wants to keep his freedom, then would he support the efforts of the Railroad and help free other self-aware synths, or would you say that only he should be free (since you're playing him) but the other synths are machines and shouldn't be taken away from their owners? Is it just the fact that you see things through his eyes that would allow you to see Howard as more human-like?

I'm baffled at what they needed androids for in the first place. Servants and labor could easily be handled by typical robots. To make something look indistinguishable from humans implies that it is supposed to pass for human. Infiltrators and spies? Seems like an awful lot of trouble creating something that otherwise doesn't have a lot of capabilities that exceed those of conventional robots unless their function requires them to be as human as possible.

I probably wouldn't even have a clue, and since that Mr. Handy's memory would've been wiped clean of any memory of it once being an android, that android's identity would be very much destroyed.

I agree as well. There has to be a reason why other than ‘It sounded like a deliciously evil idea at the time.’


I'd like that idea. It'd show that there are people outside my own character who would agree or disagree with my actions.

I suppose it depends on how I roleplay him. If he finds out he's an android, his self-preservation instincts/programming might kick in and decide he's better off trying to hide and survive rather than assist the Railroad. Harkness found out he was a synthetic man who was a slave and the first thing he did was run. So it just depends on how I play Howard. Given the background we have, he might have to juggle between his new identity and what is best for his wife and kid.

But yeah, I think the fact that we would be seeing things through Howard's eyes allows us to see him as more than just a synthetic man who thinks he's people.

I've always said that, so much technology for seemingly no reason. Someone at Bethesda really loved Blade Runner apparently. That's why these things exist.

And because of science... That's enough reason for some scientists

For Fallout scientists at least. Is there any reason that Big Empty scientists did even half of the stuff they did?

yeah, sure... if the logic is flawed - deny the problem.........

edit: the world would be a much easier place to live in if people wouldn't constantly mistaken their words with what they mean...

edit2: chimpanzees' cognitive capacities equal an average 8yo's btw (not that that mattered in any way for the question at hand though)

(and every test about this so far has been for the aspects of intelligence relevant for humans (like language, logics, conclusion etc), you'd likely not want to know how an 8yo would fare in a test about the aspects relevant to chimpanzees (3d orientation, complex perception (how quick they get a clue out of a new situation), social etc)

i do both, actually.

when i role play, i'm "me, elsewhere". it's like stress testing your own mental setup in a different environment.

(i'd even go as far as to say, if i couldn't accept the game's environment for "real" for the time being, it'd not be role playing at all)

i can tell you so much that, in real life, the main reason for trying to make robots humanlike* seems to be their major field of work will be, like, old age care and the likes, and a humanlike look simply makes it easier for humans to accept and build trust to such a machine.

not much i can say about the institute's movitavions of doing so in a post nuke wasteland. likely stg of some more sinister nature... ,-)

* ...IF we (humans) really ever needed any other reason for doing something beyond "because we can"

For War. Those X 20 suits, cazadores, and much more were intended for the War.

Yes, very much so. Androids have an AI, they have the ability to understand and think on the level of humans, probably even better then us. It's unethical to 'own' something that can have the same level of reasoning and self-awareness as you, or even a more advanced level.

It might as well be the same as owning a slave, it's entirely unethical.

Correct. I don't have to adress in detail your flawed logic. I just have to explain why it is flawed. And I did.

I wouldn't. I think I'd describe your scenario as brain death for an android. There's nothing left of what they used to be. If their code or hardware or whatever was used and developed to create something new I'd say it's an entirely different being.

Owning a wild animal is possibly unethical. Owning a machine is never unethical.

Be it a toaster, talking car, or a robot that looks human.