Keep in mind too that we are laying down a gauntlet that asserts you must be all of those keystones and cannot be less than ideal on any of them. It is an all-or-nothing proposition. We might concede that you could bevirtuous by abiding by some of the thirteen rather than all of them. We might also be willing to concede that you are partially virtuous if you at times are fully virtuous on all of them but then at other moments in time you are not attaining such completeness.
To make it demonstrably apparent, not everyone agrees with the bedrock and outcropping way of looking at these matters. Nonetheless, we will proceed on that basis in this particular discussion. You can certainly argue at length at such a presumptive presumption, but at least be cognizant that this is an assumption herein and undertaken for the simple sake of fruitful discourse.Shifting gears a tad, mull over the trend today of flavorful ethics articulation and pontification.
You might even suggest that the constant din of what ethical rules to follow has become an undue obsession. It keeps getting hotter and more embroiled. In turn, we stray further and further away from the inner truth of having to put our eyes on virtues first.by researchers Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J.
The type of AI that I am focusing on consists of the non-sentient AI that we have today. If we wanted to wildly speculate about sentient AI, this discussion could go in a radically different direction. A sentient AI would supposedly be of human quality. You would need to consider that the sentient AI is the cognitive equivalent of a human. More so, since some speculate we might have super-intelligent AI, it is conceivable that such AI could end up being smarter than humans .