For lastvoyages: Second Casefile [Written]

[cannibalmind]

[Private]
Case Study Two: Richard, "Ritchie", Inmate to Will Graham, last name unknown.

Ritchie presents as a quietly nervous young man with the distinct goatish odor of schizophrenia to him. Outwardly neat, presentable and soft-spoken, he carries around a tremendous amount of tension and I suspect has a violent temper. From his dependency and immaturity I suspect that he never had the opportunity to grow in a healthy manner before he was struck down by his illness. He does not appear to have received treatment, or even a clear diagnosis from a professional, and may well be in complete denial about his illness. Will and I discussed him, and his Warden agrees that acknowledging what the young man has suffered, alone or near to it and certainly without proper help, will be key to gaining his trust and cooperation. Despite his illness and certain...unpleasant proclivities toward women, he strikes me as quite intelligent and with a great deal of untapped potential.

Note to self: talk to him one on one.

[Public]
Every culture and society has its own moral standards. I speak not of the laws of a society, but rather its unwritten cultural rules and mores--that which is assumed to be so obviously right and wrong that it need not even be codified.


As an example, consider the four Japanese Pillars of Moral Character. [His pronunciation of each term is perfect.] On is the principle of repaying one's debts, both literal and debts of honor. Gimu is the principle of owing allegiance to the holder of any debts you cannot repay, such as when one owes one's life to another. Giri refers to the execution of one's obligations, both of occupation and of private life, to the best of one's ability. Finally, Ninjo, the compassionate acknowledgment of the interconnectedness of all people and in a larger sense, all living things. The value of these principles were impressed upon me in my youth, and I have come to be reminded of them of late.

Yet no moral code means much of anything unless it is internalized and brought into action by individual people. In internalizing cultural mores, of course, the mores themselves tend to change. People will relate to one part of a code and yet find others irrelevant to their lives; others will attempt the whole exercise, subsuming any personal moral thought in favor of what their society deems to be right. And even then, the ways in which each person acts upon commonly accepted morals changes with their characters. A soldier sees nothing contradictory in fighting for peace, for example, though he by all rights values it more by knowing its opposite so intimately. Yet many civilians would see this as a contradiction. They forget the need for rough men standing ready in the night because violence is so foreign to their day to day experience. Who is right? Is there not room in society for both points of view?

Is morality rigidly unshakeable at its heart, or is it fluid and subject to cultural, situational and personal relativity? I would argue the latter...but only to a point. Like a willow tree, morality bends with the wind, but it has certain immovable roots. Can they be identified and agreed upon? And if so, what are they?

Where is your baseline for morality? What do you believe are the moral arguments that all can agree upon, or which are most practical?

Comments

[cannibalmind.livejournal.com]

The Japanese are a rather sentimental race, yes. Enlightened self-interest is an interesting redefinition, however. If one's sense of self includes one's interdependence with others, it is I suppose a very logical progression.

[Nope, no hostility here yet. He's too polite.]

[no_fastolfe]

The more the human race moves beyond need, the less interdependent we need be on one another. Earth is still gripped with a shortage of resources; the taboos and social mores are thick and complex. On a Spacer world there are fewer taboos, and they are more focused on the comfort of the individual.

[cannibalmind.livejournal.com]

Spacing worlds. Fascinating. I take it, then that you are from a society far more advanced than my own.

I assume that you have a preference for spacing worlds?

[no_fastolfe]

Indeed! I am a Spacer, sir. I was born on Aurora, the first of fifty spacer worlds. We split from Earth long ago, because Earth refused to embrace the technology that would afford them comfort, and tied themselves to their planet until they realized that the other worlds were full.

[cannibalmind.livejournal.com]

Absolutely fascinating. Yes, I think that if born into your culture, I would take a similar path. There is a place for tradtion and for ancient things, but...the future lies in adaptability.

[no_fastolfe]

I believe that the future of humanity lies on the Spacer worlds. The next step in evolution is one that we enable for ourselves, when we are free to focus purely on intellectual pursuits-- even sculpture or music or hair designing, for some. For others of us, the hard sciences.

[cannibalmind.livejournal.com]

I have multiple pursuits. Psychiatry, psychotherapy, art. I wonder about the impact of spacing life on these pursuits, especially contemporary psychology; how a life without scarcity and with a baseline level of enlightenment above my culture's own might affect the mind. I imagine there is greater opportunity for health and advancement of the mental disciplines in such a circumstance.

Sorry for the delay :( Hard to switch journals on my phone

[no_fastolfe]

[Someone who isn't arguing with her or browbeating her? How splendid!]

I am no doctor or mentologist; I can't offer you more insight, I apologize. I can only speak to the state of robotics.

Gotcha. :)

[cannibalmind.livejournal.com]

That is quite all right. As for speaking to the state of robotics, that is a fascinating subject in its own right. Especially considering that my first close acquaintance here is in fact a robot herself.

[no_fastolfe]

I know of only one female-identified AI aboard; you must be speaking of the T-X, unless there has been a new arrival.

[cannibalmind.livejournal.com]

Yes. Also known as Ms. Anderson. A fascinating being: pure intellect without emotion or the judgments born thereof.

[no_fastolfe]

And respectable in that!

However, it goes against all Spacer principals that a robot should ever be constructed that might harm humans. Some Earther in her history performed an abomination in creating the sky-net that could produce such intelligences.

[cannibalmind.livejournal.com]

I understand. Though I do wonder how robots who are incapable of violence might defend themselves or others. That right is part of autonomy in itself.

She seems to believe that human beings require wards and guardians who are incapable of error.

[no_fastolfe]

They can defend themselves from other robots. They can intervene in human conflicts, prioritizing the least amount of harm to all parties.

But they were not designed simply for the joy of creating them. They were designed to aid humans. It would be cruel-- immoral-- to design a being that desired more than it would be provided.

[cannibalmind.livejournal.com]

If it is possible to design an intelligent being capable of full satisfaction with its existence, I would think that to be preferable. Humans are fraught with unattainable longings, and though it drives us forward it is quite painful.

[no_fastolfe]

It allows for spontaneous insight and creation, our longing for the unattainable. And yet it makes us violent and insincere in our interactions with one another-- even Aurora is not without its politics, its petty schemes. I do not like politics, and much prefer the company of robots.

[cannibalmind.livejournal.com]

I can understand the latter very much. I find the T-X's company refreshing. There is no judgment, no dissembling, and no pulling of verbal punches. With her I always know precisely where I stand.

[no_fastolfe]

Unfortunately, with the T-X any organic life stands as the enemy. While I understand this is not her choice, it makes me somewhat reluctant to interact for long periods of time with her.