3 ms·
Very lazy article. Sets up its premise, then offers only one counterargument - that it's too hard to define "human" because of the edge cases of unborn fetuses
by QuadrupleA 6y ago
Very lazy article. Sets up its premise, then offers only one counterargument - that it's too hard to define "human" because of the edge cases of unborn fetuses and just-died people needing CPR. Nothing at all after that, the article just abruptly ends. Might be an interesting premise but someone will need to argue it better.
- Proven 6y agoI didn't know there's Zeroth Law. In any case, fetuses don't have rights (for the same reason abortion is widely allowed). As for freshly-died people, it's no different from about-to-die people: robots have no business deciding to interfere with humans - they should obey only their owners and follow their explicit instructions. People have a right to suicide. Being a robot or owning one doesn't entitle one to violate this right when others want to exercise it. The "laws" are wrong but not for the reasons from TFA.