I was thinking about the Star Trek episode we watched in class the other day, and I noticed that there really are several questions Captain Picard raises in the hearing that are never really developed, much less answered. A huge one seems to be, "What is the difference between a sentient being and an android?" I think he illustrates that nicely when he asks the bad guy to prove that he is sentient, but he never really comes right out and says it. Another one, one that I think is even more interesting, is the question of property.
This is kind of a moral issue more than a purely philosophical thing (although I guess what are morals without philosophy?), but Picard never proves that Data is not property. Mainly he uses a series of emotional appeals that stretch the boundaries of what is considered human and non-human (and I use those terms loosely--it is Star Trek, after all). But why isn't Data property? He is a machine. He was created, I'll assume at some expense, by a master engineer. Is it simply because he had a crush on some girl that we are unwilling to label him as a glorified appliance? What does that suggest? Does love or sentimentality come, then, from our idea of the mind--or is it more tied in with the soul argument again?
Really, it seems as if Data only wins his case because the people trying it become emotionally involved with him. (And there's another question: where does pity come from? It doesn't seem very useful in purely physical terms.) I suggest that they identify with him as a souled being. Whether he is or not I don't know, but I think that's why they balk at calling him property. We are willing to "enslave" machines that do not exhibit the qualities that we associate with souls. It is in the soul, then, that we place the worth of a creature. That is why it is considered wrong in most circles to kill of the brain damaged or the "mindless;" because our idea of a soul is still intact.
Just a thought. Sorry if that was a bit rambly. I sort of worked it out as I went along. I hope it makes sense.
This is kind of a moral issue more than a purely philosophical thing (although I guess what are morals without philosophy?), but Picard never proves that Data is not property. Mainly he uses a series of emotional appeals that stretch the boundaries of what is considered human and non-human (and I use those terms loosely--it is Star Trek, after all). But why isn't Data property? He is a machine. He was created, I'll assume at some expense, by a master engineer. Is it simply because he had a crush on some girl that we are unwilling to label him as a glorified appliance? What does that suggest? Does love or sentimentality come, then, from our idea of the mind--or is it more tied in with the soul argument again?
Really, it seems as if Data only wins his case because the people trying it become emotionally involved with him. (And there's another question: where does pity come from? It doesn't seem very useful in purely physical terms.) I suggest that they identify with him as a souled being. Whether he is or not I don't know, but I think that's why they balk at calling him property. We are willing to "enslave" machines that do not exhibit the qualities that we associate with souls. It is in the soul, then, that we place the worth of a creature. That is why it is considered wrong in most circles to kill of the brain damaged or the "mindless;" because our idea of a soul is still intact.
Just a thought. Sorry if that was a bit rambly. I sort of worked it out as I went along. I hope it makes sense.
posted by Lindsay at 10:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home