[The handsome red-haired man appears human. He was designed very carefully to do so. Most do not take the time to observe that his facial expressions are not quite instinctive, that the micromotions are too precise and do not vary. But it would take a very close observer indeed.
He's taking the manifestations on his vis-screen without much reaction, however.]
"Evil. Evil is defined as extreme and willful violation of a society's mores or personal rights, whether from apathy, extreme self-interest, irrationality or fanaticism." He's watching the newcomer closely, his curiosity piqued.
Is it a purely social phenomenon, then? If two societies meet and two individuals interact with one another according to their own ways, which of them is evil? Is evil that does no harm worse than damaging behavior that is societally acceptable?
Please pardon the academic interrogation; I am interested in psychology, you see. Observing your communications network through this interference has been intriguing.
It is not a purely social phenomenon; there is a certain area of overlap between the various cultural definitions of morality where consensus, and a core morality, can be found.
I am not certain that behavior that does not harm another can be defined as evil. It certainly has in the past by certain moral outliers such as the Catholic church, which due to its political ties condones murder in many circumstances, but condemns homosexuality.
Very old Earth history, from my timeline of reference, but I do know some of the major religions of Earth. You are not Christian, I assume? My old friend Elijah was not, but was very conversant with the Bible, and gained useful insight from it.
I am against religosity, though spirituality of a more free and intellectual nature appeals to me. And indeed, a scholarly examination of the holy books of many cultures can be of great value providing insight into the societies and minds that they influence.
Separate from religiosity, then, what acts have you encountered that you found evil? [The stranger looks at him piercingly, almost as if he was reading his mind.
Which is nonsense; of course. He can't touch minds at this distance.]
[The stranger actually flinches, and for a moment the slight imperfection in his micromotions is magnified. The shock seem to magnify his disaffect, instead of make him more emotional.]
...that is immensely troubling. The impact of that intention is no question of philosophy; it is supremely damaging, I cannot argue.
I did not mean to shock, but it is a situation I find myself facing. I do not have any desire to see the entirety of any race destroyed. It strikes me as one of the ultimate crimes a thinking being is capable of.
[Far away, Daneel restabilizes himself. The First Law and his own extrapolative Zeroeth Law-- the protection of individual humans, the protection of humanity-- are not things he can or would change. The very thought of it caused him-- as it would any Ascenion robot-- a sensation like physical harm.]
I agree entirely. I hold the preservation of the human race as the highest ideal-- its health and its betterment-- paramount. To consider it being -- [he pauses, a little strained] is horrifying.
[Horror. Does it have any meaning to him? Unacceptable is the better word, he's sure. But he has a cover to maintain.]
[Earth's history is... at times appalling. But prepared, Daneel only blinks hard.]
Evil. It is a concept that I have not heard explained in terms that I could accept, scientifically. The feeling of it, I knew. [A very convincing lie. Or is it? It must be; Robots cannot feel. And yet..] To define it, though. That eluded me. But you bring an example of it together with the definition in a way that provides new clarity.
If you are not an ethical man, you are a very insightful one.
Evil, like good, has an ineffable quality to it; words do not seem quite enough to contain the concept. But they remain identifiable to the soul if not the mind, as it were.
He's taking the manifestations on his vis-screen without much reaction, however.]
Define evil.
Reply
Reply
Please pardon the academic interrogation; I am interested in psychology, you see. Observing your communications network through this interference has been intriguing.
Reply
I am not certain that behavior that does not harm another can be defined as evil. It certainly has in the past by certain moral outliers such as the Catholic church, which due to its political ties condones murder in many circumstances, but condemns homosexuality.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Which is nonsense; of course. He can't touch minds at this distance.]
Reply
Reply
...that is immensely troubling. The impact of that intention is no question of philosophy; it is supremely damaging, I cannot argue.
Reply
Reply
I agree entirely. I hold the preservation of the human race as the highest ideal-- its health and its betterment-- paramount. To consider it being -- [he pauses, a little strained] is horrifying.
[Horror. Does it have any meaning to him? Unacceptable is the better word, he's sure. But he has a cover to maintain.]
Reply
I am not so ethical a man, but even I am horrified at the prospect. I have lived through "ethnic cleansing" myself and have no desire to see it here.
Reply
Evil. It is a concept that I have not heard explained in terms that I could accept, scientifically. The feeling of it, I knew. [A very convincing lie. Or is it? It must be; Robots cannot feel. And yet..] To define it, though. That eluded me. But you bring an example of it together with the definition in a way that provides new clarity.
If you are not an ethical man, you are a very insightful one.
Reply
It is part of my calling to be insightful.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment