Right to bodily autonomy means the right to suicide.
Why? People in USA literally have second amendment right and it is curtailed by many, many stipulations but yet everybody pretends or even firmly believes that the right exists. Why you cannot have right to bodily autonomy except suicide? You already have many such stipulations, for instance your right to bodily autonomy and many other rights are suspended if you are in prison. There is right to bodily autonomy except certain mandatory vaccinations etc. What is another stipulation changing?
georgioz
5d ago
I like Matt Walsh take on this. Some people believe that AI has very significant apocalypse potential, thus AI executives are literally building a bomb about to kill us all. And the response? "Ah, you are silly! AI executives only spread fake doomsday propaganda trying to scare the population in order to get competitive advantage, power and money."
And this is supposed to be "there is nothing to worry about, just move along, nothing to see here" argument? It is horrible either way.
Humans form into self-integrated societies that have net-positive moral utility.
Humans do not agree what is "net-positive moral utility". For instance I think about it from of Christian virtue ethics, not in form of utility.
Rights dependent on subjective or arbitrary thresholds have historically had enormous potential for abuse.
Right is a legal fiction, basically a strongly worded law. From where I stand, right was always the other side of duty. As soon as people renege on said duty, rights stops existing. We see it again and again. Right to privacy of correspondence is in article 12 of Universal Human Rights. It basically stopped existing after decades old creeping process of governments spying on said correspondence, people do not feel duty to resist it so the right stops existing, and not enough people care.
For a functioning, high-performance society, we must have it be generally the case that people believe rights, including life, will generally be upheld
Even skipping what "high-performance society" even means as it by itself is value and thus morality laden statement, rights as was said are social constructs. If enough people think that sacrificing hearts to the blood good or that tears of newborn children are perfectly fine price to pay for greater good, then such thing will be enshrined as a law. Maybe even a right - people have right to live their free lives enabled by tears of newborn children. What is life of a child in face of all the other things that are valued in society, children will be sacrificed to the Moloch of these rights. All of the aforementioned things be it surrogacy or euthanasia are also argued in terms of rights: right to family life, right to bodily autonomy or whatnot. In the end the rights have to be evaluated by somebody if they clash, they can be amended or suspended as during COVID. Nothing will happen if right is stepped upon or changed: no smiting, nothing will physically shatter.
In the end we live in a society that we live in, we have laws based on values and ethical system accepted through culture in the society, which are in turn informed by theology of decision makers and general population in their day to day activity. This world is the result of that.
I agree, but only partially. My red line is AI assisted human writing as opposed to pure AI bot writing. The point being that we already lived in this reality. For instance for years and years youtubers and bloggers and forum posters used computer algorithms to evaluate their content creation. If everything you create in your video is informed by the algorithm from the length, language used, thumbnail even to analysis of content that has highest chance of viral impact - you were as much a slave to "AI" in 2019 as you are in 2026 if you use AI for research or refining of your post. The original idea of "human writing for humans by humans" is long gone.
More options
Context Copy link