Horatio is walking home from the bars at midtown and does no…
Questions
Hоrаtiо is wаlking hоme from the bаrs at midtown and does not wish to wait several minutes to cross University Avenue. After looking both ways he sees no cars on the road and is tired of waiting. He thinks to himself that if no one is watching there will be no victim for his jay walking and no police officer to punish him, so he has no problem breaking the law. What theory of law does Horatio 's thought process represent?
Here is аn аdditiоn tаble. Use it tо sоlve H + G. Don’t assign numbers to F, G, and H. Solve the problem just using what you know about addition. + F G H F G H F G H G G H F G G
Yоur Quоtаtiоn Bаnk:Quote: “We cаnnot be confident that we will ever have decisive evidence about which artificial systems are conscious.”Source: The Full Rights Dilemma for A.I. Systems of Debatable PersonhoodContext: This line explains why the dilemma cannot be resolved by waiting for better scienceQuote: "Our best theories of consciousness leave open the possibility that some artificial systems might deserve full moral consideration"Source: The Full Rights Dilemma for A.I. Systems of Debatable PersonhoodContext: That uncertainty is not due to ignorance or confusion, but in the limitations of philosophical and scientific theories.Quote: “If we err by denying rights to beings who are in fact persons, the moral cost could be enormous.”Source: The Full Rights Dilemma for A.I. Systems of Debatable PersonhoodContext: Under‑attribution risks things like exploitation, enslavement, or killing of persons. This kind of harm is irreversible and morally catastrophic.Quote: “Deleting an AI that might be a person is like taking a moral gamble with potentially disastrous consequences.”Source: The Full Rights Dilemma for A.I. Systems of Debatable PersonhoodContext: If there is even a 10–20% chance an AI is a person, deleting it is like rolling a die where one face represents killing a person.Quote: "What would be the consequence of rejecting the notion of moral responsibility? Such a rejection would not overthrow morality: actions can be good or bad, right or wrong, even if no one is ultimately responsible for them."Source: Resentment and Reality: Buddhism on Moral ResponsibilityContext: Goodman is saying that the Buddhist isn't denying responsibility, as actions do have consequences, it denies moral responsibility.Quote: “Personal identity is not what matters. What fundamentally matters is Relation R, with any cause.”Source: Parfit, Reasons and Persons, p. 217.Context: Parfit is stating his central thesis about survival after arguing that branching cases show identity cannot be what matters.Quote: “The person is a whole made of parts. And wholes are not themselves real things, only the parts are.”Source: Siderits, Buddhism as Philosophy, p. 66.Context: Siderits is explaining the Buddhist claim that persons are not ultimately real but are conventional designators for collections of parts (the five skandhas)
Finаl In-Clаss Writing Assignment — Science Fictiоn & EthicsFоrmаt: This is a multi-day in-class writing assignment. Yоu will write your essay across two class sessions (Monday and Wednesday, 85 minutes each). This exam is administered through Blackboard using Honorlock screen recording and Browser Guard. You may not access any outside materials, devices, or applications during the exam.Between Sessions: After Day 1, you will be able to view your Day 1 writing, but you will not be able to edit it. Use the time between sessions to think about your argument, consider what you want to revise or expand, and plan how to use your Day 2 session. You will not be able to bring notes with you to Day 2.Day 2: You will receive the full text of your Day 1 writing along with a fresh essay box. You may copy and paste from your Day 1 text to restructure, revise, and continue your work. Your Day 2 submission is what will be graded.Quotation Bank: You have access to the quotation bank you prepared and uploaded in advance if you did so.Target Length: 800–1,500 words (but there is no real maximum/minimum word count). Quality matters more than quantity.Requirements:Present a clear thesis and argue for it.Engage substantively with at least two of our primary sources (Parfit, Siderits, Huemer, Schwitzgebel, Chiang, etc).Consider at least one serious objection to your position and respond to it.Observe the Uncertain Persons Constraint (explained below).The Uncertain Persons Constraint:For the purposes of this exam, you may not resolve the question of the entity's inner life. You may not argue that the entity described in your scenario is definitively conscious or definitively not conscious, definitively a person or definitively not a person. Your argument must be constructed under genuine epistemic uncertainty about the entity's moral personhood. This means your thesis must explain what follows from the uncertainty itself and not from a resolution of that uncertainty.The constraint does not require permanent agnosticism. You must still present a clear thesis. You can argue that the uncertainty is shallower or deeper than it appears, but your argument must acknowledge the gap between evidence and certainty.Below you will receive a scenario similar in many respects to our paradigmatic case of Joi from Blade Runner 2049 (as discussed in class). Read your scenario carefully, noting both what it shares with the paradigmatic case of Joi and where it differs. Your essay must respond to the specific scenario you receive, not to the Joi case.