Do not use material from any outside (i.e., secondary) sources, and do not use quotes from the primary source material longer than several words; I want to read what you have to say about the text. When you do quote the text, however, be sure to enlist the appropriate punctuation.
As a reminder, be sure to construct grammatical sentences that:
give a clear and concise description of the case at hand or the central problem each thinker addresses.
introduce and describe the relevant philosophical concepts.
give a thorough, philosophical explication of the relevant aspects of each thinker’s arguments. (Remember the tips on how to successfully analyze a text.)
present an argument applying the relevant philosophers to the case at hand or to the question posed.
present an argument of your own regarding the moral status of the solution(s) to the case at hand or answer to the question posed. Be sure your argument does not replace the explication instructions above.
Assignment Question
Schwitzgebel and Garza offer argue for three principles – two “precautionary” and one involving design.
Choose one of the principles.
Present (describe, explain, analyze) Schwitzgebel and Garza’s argument for the principle you choose.
Present (describe, explain, analyze) one (and only one) of the following thinkers in connection with Schwitzgebel and Garza’s argument: Sartre, Midgley, or Rachels. In other words, how can you make sense of the AI ethics issues S&W raise within the framework of Sartre’s existential ethics, Midgley’s (presentation and) critique of relativism, or Rachels’s (presentation and) and critique of ethical egoism?
Note that you’ll likely have to address (Kantian) deontology and (Mill’s) utilitarianism.
The post “Exploring AI Ethics: Schwitzgebel and Garza’s Precautionary Principle and its Connections to Sartre, Midgley, and Rachels” appeared first on around the clock essays.