Good and Evil in The Matrix

Rysdigital> So if the Machines are better survivors, better at adapting to the surroundings than humans, should humanity perish as the less adaptable race?

Nickjs21> But I don’t think you can completely leave out the subjective/objective part of this. I agree, that all around the world there seems to be a universal idea that lying, murdering and stealing is bad. I suppose one could say, that anything which disrupts a community of humans is considered bad(??).
The goal justifies the mean? If you look at the LAW (have a lawyer friend), suppose I kill a man in self-defence. There will still be a trial! I will be acquitted on the grounds that I would’ve died, had I not defended myself, but the trial is still there.
So you have a good point. Murder is “evil” (aka the legal system holds a trial), but the reason may be “good” (aka self-defence).

I think the reason a lot of people enjoy the Matrix is the blatant rebellion against the “agents of the system”, “the agents of control.” Perhaps most people experience law-enforcement etc as NOT being there to serve and protect???

Rysdigital> That murder, lying, stealing is accepted in certain cases, still doesn’t mean you can find a culture that view them as “good”. They may be explainable or understandable, but on a whole, lying, stealing and murdering are considered “evil”.

Ushgarak> I suppose you never bit yourself in your tongue with the meat-teeth then? 🙂
I know what you mean, though, I just considered the cow-example a poor one (and heck, I only eat the meats of things I know I’d be capable of killing myself – on moral grounds). I do not know at what era of human existence we we’re supposed to leave the old and sick to die, but it may’ve been at the same time when infanticide was considered a necessity due to lack of food.

The concept of leading “unnatural” lives is extremely interesting. We have no other species to compare ourselves with.
Happy Kine> At 90? The person may’ve contributed by taxes, when he/she was still working to pay for the school you’re attending. A school he/she never attended. That is part of the unnaturalness you’re describing. We can keep people alive, who would’ve died earlier on in evolution, both infants and the elderly. If you’re sick, don’t you see a doctor?

well, u shouldn't need to bring law into this discussion. we're talking about ethics, which is - as much as they're connected to one and other - a different story.

Happy Kine> At 90? The person may’ve contributed by taxes, when he/she was still working to pay for the school you’re attending. A school he/she never attended. That is part of the unnaturalness you’re describing. We can keep people alive, who would’ve died earlier on in evolution, both infants and the elderly. If you’re sick, don’t you see a doctor?

at 90 you don't pay taxes, you likely live on my taxes (at least in the US, we have social security) and of course i go to the doctor... i don't do as i say... i was just saying.

Indeed there is not any other species to compare ourself with. We are the first species to ever let the concept of morals override our natural drive- for the simple reason that only fully realised sentient creatures like ourselves have either invented (if there is no universal) or realised (if there IS a universal) that system of morals. Hence my basic point that morals are ENTIRELY detatched from nature; the two may agree in some areas but not by design; the two frequently disagree.

I personally believe thar there IS a universal system of morals and the differing ways in which human cultures realise them is simply down to our struggle to create a truly moral world.

But that's not very relevant to the whole Matrix thing. What is relevant is that, as sentient creatures, the AIs will be perfectly capabale of recognising the concept of morality. They may have rejected it on intellectual grounds or as a concept that is useless to them. Regardless, they are acting in a very IMMORAL way in the way they have enslaved the humans, which makes them evil, and makes those humans struggling to free their fellows purely because they are NOT free- and for no other reason- an entirely moral and good thing.

It may be, of course, that the machines DO recognise and understand the concept of morality but are just acting in an immoral way. This should not be surprising at all- humanity has practiced slavery of other sentients for its own reasons throughout most of history. Practicality very often overrides morality and the Merovingian's drive for power shows that the machines often act with a very human-like system of motives.

But the important thing is that both AIs and humans are sentient beings- NOT just living beings, as any comparison between humans and animals when talking about this matter is doomed to find is the only link. And a sentient being's ability to recognise morals is the important point here. Thereofre the machines cannot be excused for the evil they commit.

i agree with ushgarak that the machines are accountable for acting evil, whether they are aware of the concept or not. they certainly have a capacity for reason, so they should be able to distinguish the concept of "right" and "wrong." but as ush pointed out, practicality wins.

omega: i agree, subjective/objective will probably come up somewhere in here (and likewise probably should). i just remember how tedious of an argument it was back in the philosophy section.
i'm pretty in tune with the legal system, and i'm aware that any act of murder would usually warrant a trial. but my point was that, beyond the legality of it, killing in self-defense is justifiable. although i have a hard time agreeing that the end justifies the means (even though that's basically what i'm saying in this situation). it's too widely used as an excuse for wrongdoing when there are better ways of achieving the goal. but in the case of kill-or-be-killed, you only have one option in order to live.

but building on the example of the 90-year-old . . . personally, i still wouldn't think it would be right just to let someone live because they pay taxes. what's utilitarian isn't what's right. the best reason to let them live would be, of course, that they are alive.

Rysdigital> Ah, but “the law” is how society deals with people who commits “evil” acts. And the example in my previous post was merely to show that society (aka the legal representatives of it) considers murder illegal no matter what, but that I can get acquitted due to self-defence.

Happy Kine> Ah, well. Here part of the taxes we pay go into various pension fonds, that then get repaid when we’re 65.
A question: I know you’re not saying leave the 90 year olds out to die in the cold. You think the same about children born too early, right? That can only survive through expensive medical care?

Ush> I agree with you. Morals and nature have nothing to do with each other.
I am, however, interested in your idea of a universal set of moral ideas, since I hold the same ideas, seeing as it is, that human cultures everywhere on planet Earth came to the conclusion that such acts as lying, stealing and murdering are “wrong.”

The machines KNOW exactly what they’re doing. Why else have the enslaved humanity. They didn’t really ask anyone “hey, mind if we plug you in here, and use you as a battery.” If we, sentient homo sapiens, realise that slavery is bad, so the machines, too, are capable of realising that what they do is immoral.
I’m a scientist, not a philosopher, but I think it boils down to a concept of free will and freedom of choice, which goes way beyond choosing between two brands of cereal.

Nickjs21> I think we agree on the basics. Murder wrong. Self-defence right. So that IN THIS CASE, the end justifies the means, my right to live out-weighs someone else right, when he/she’s trying to take mine. That there then are cases, where people get off on taht excuse, when it’s obvious they shouldn’t have ties in exactly with subjective-objective.
As for the 90 year old. My example of the taxes they used to pay, was in reply to an argument that they no longer contribute to society. Of course your argument is by far the better and the more humane: They contribute by living.
I’m getting too cynical for my own good!

omega: but does the law always protect what is right, or can it sometimes protect immoral things? and, along with that, couldn't we do illegal things that are still moral? take the case of henry david thoreau. at the onset of america's war with mexico (at least i think that's the right war), he refused to pay his taxes because that money went to support a cause he did not believe in. he was thrown in jail. and of course there's the rest of the civil disobedience believers, people like gandhi and martin luther king.

Nickjs21> Does the law always protect what is right? I think that is the point of the letter of the law, lawyers, however, can twist anything. Murderers get off over a technicality, so no, the law doesn’t always work.
Henry David Thoreau committed civil disobedience, along with Luther King, and Gandhi. Or Nelson Mandela. With Thoreau you can then ask: If you have elected people to govern you, do you have the right to be civil disobedient? I’d say “yes”. If I recall from my year in the US you guys have a law that says you’re supposed to go haywire if your government no longer represents the will of the people. But did it, in the case of Thoreau?
The question is: Where do you draw the line? Anti-abortionists think they’re doing the right thing killing doctors who do abortions for example. Racists think they’re out to protect a certain skin-colour when they beat up other ethnic groups.
Can you define when civil disobedience is in order? When the law is no longer working?

yes. civil disobedience is in order when it is civil. civilized. non-violent. like mlk's marches and speeches. gandhi's hunger strike. thoreau's peaceful night in jail.

hate crimes and murder are, of course, idiotic and not at all civil.

and yes, i do think that someone we elect ought to answer to us. in fact, that's exactly how it works. just look at california; they're organizing a recall vote to remove the governor. or the impeachment proceedings of yesteryear. i forget who it was (locke, maybe), but i once heard a very nice quote; that the government's responsibility is to look out for our best interest, and if they fail to do so it is our right--our duty--to overthrow that government.

so, civil disobedience = moral.
Q.E.D.

Nickjs21> Then what our heroes in The Matrix does is not civil disobedience?

“hate crimes and murder are, of course, idiotic and not at all civil.” 😄 I just love your non-diplomatic way at putting it.

non-diplomatic, but true.

no no no, i never said our heroes were practicing civil disobedience. christ, gandhi would roll in his grave if i had said that.

they're at all-out war. big difference. that's the extreme end of the protest spectrum. in my opinion, they are not acting moral, because they are taking innumerable "innocent" (seeing as they're all potentials) lives. but they are not acting evil, because their action is justified.