Cosmopolitanism, Artificial Intelligence, And Factor X

On one hand people accept that there are universal moral principles that are normal in every culture. But, on the other hand people feel that cultural differences should be looked upon with sensitivity and tolerance (Bock, 2014). You can look at such cultural and perhaps religious differences as circumcision in both men and women (Bock, 2014). In the U.S. you can abortions as an example of moral and religious choice but in other countries they feel it is morally and ethically correct to kill female babies when they are born (Bock,

Appiah spends more than half of his introduction describing how complicated the word cosmopolitanism truly is. He keeps revolving around the overlapping idea that we as a people, are not confined to the limits of what our eyes can see. Our strengths, our experiences and our knowledge comes from more than where we were born or how we were raised. We cannot and should not be limited to those

All around the world today, there is a lot of tension revolving around concepts of morality. In Moral Disagreement by Kwame Anthony Appiah, Appiah writes about differing values and morals around the world and within our society. He points out, “we aren’t the only people who have the concepts of right and wrong, good and bad; every society, it seems, has terms that correspond to these thin concepts” (658). However, these concepts are not always the same with each other in every society. In the same way that not everyone in our society believes in the same moral concepts. Unfortunately, it is these disagreements that often separate us as people. Forming different cultures, large and small, throughout the world. This is not a bad thing, but it does separate us as a race, leaving us to care more for one group of people rather than humanity as a whole. In Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism, by Martha Nussbaum, Nussbaum suggest that a way to fix this problem, and to become a cosmopolitan person, is to teach students in our education systems more of different cultures throughout the world. Yet not only should we learn to accept other cultures and their beliefs, but we should also educate ourselves to accept everybody we meet, giving respect to them as individuals, if we ever truly want to become a citizen of the world.

Ethnocentrism is difficult to overcome in trying to understand the ways of others cultures. It usually leads people to believe that their own culture’s way of life is in some ways better or more natural than that of others. It is also hard to avoid this perspective because people are socialized to think in ways consistent with their cultural values and to evaluate practices in terms of how well they fit with a culture's views on what is good or bad. In general, cultures tend to value more those characteristics for which their own culture is particularly accomplished. The cultural variation in moral reasoning, described next would seem to behoove one to be slow to pass judgement on other cultures and first consider why the carious cultural differences exist as they do.

When faced with a cultural ethical dilemma I tend to take a pluralistic approach. I believe that we should make an effort to understand cultural differences, but at the same time there are some actions that are wrong no matter where you are from. I believe that relativism can lead to chaos and that absolutism is too strict and judgmental. Pluralism helps to create a nice balance between absolutism and relativism.

Each of the AI’s discussed are advanced but some seem more human than others. Ava resembles humans more than the others, with a flesh face and hands and an actual body the other AI’s do not come close. She also passes the turing test convincing her creator that she has manipulated Caleb in to doing what she wanted making her a success. On the same hand, she has purely selfish motivations of freedom which the other AI’s were not programmed for. Likewise, Hal shows an increased extinct of self-preservation when he is threatened even though this was not his program. Also, he would most likely fail the turing test without a body and a purely informational tone of speech. On the other hand, Tars seems to be more human inclined. Serving the humans

Thoughts of a cosmopolitan world have a long history. In the following essay I will examine some of the different conceptions of a cosmopolitan world and what it means to be a cosmopolitan citizen. I will examine some of the different advantages and disadvantages of the different models and the issues at the heart of the cosmopolitan ideal. Ultimately I will conclude that while the idea of cosmopolitanism seems very attractive to my own western values, imposing those values is actually counter to the goals of cosmopolitanism itself. The very things that a cosmopolitan worldview sets out to achieve, unfortunately in my view, preclude the practical implementation of a truly cosmopolitan enterprise.

In order to understand our ethical duties across national boundaries, a particularly relevant distinction between the two principles of cosmopolitanism and communitarianism will be made. These two theories provide significantly different approaches to the moral significance that we have to the different communities and certain particular identities, as well as the questions of who matters and how much we should care for those outside our

The word ‘cosmopolitan’, which derives from the Greek word kosmopolitês (‘citizen of the world’), has been used to describe a wide variety of important views in moral and socio-political philosophy. The nebulous core shared by all cosmopolitan views is the idea that all human beings, regardless of their political affiliation, are (or can and should be) citizens in a single community. Different versions of cosmopolitanism envision this community in different ways, some focusing on political institutions, others on moral norms or relationships, and still others focusing on shared markets or forms of cultural expression. In most versions of cosmopolitanism,

Cosmopolitanism believes that universal principles can be officially established without automatically conforming to a global state. On top of that, they believe that these ideals can still be instilled while also recognizing the significance of national identity. Cosmopolitanism is not seeking to radically change the ideals behind sovereignty; it is allowing for people to understand that they can embrace what makes them unique while also learning to stop discriminating against people that they feel they don’t

Each of us belongs to different cultures, yet we hold some of the same universal values. It is essential to examine each author’s noted significance. In Appiah’s ‘Cosmopolitinism,’ he implies that some of the innate universal values that each individual hold, can be expressed through art, mathematics and moral values. These values manifest into a universal identity according to Appiah, [pg. 94]. “They are present in every large enough group of our species; in particular, they are the statistical norm in every society,” [pg. 95, paragraph 1]. But, to Appiah, humanity is not an identity at all. Instead, it is a collection of shared interests. Appiah concludes Chapter 6 with this particular philosophy: You can make a stranger into a common human if you discover each other’s shared interests. And in keeping this shared interest, it is beneficial in sustaining a culture. By examining a culture of any kind, a connection can be made, concerning how cultures can make up an identity. His seminal book Cosmopolitanism, is a moral manifesto, for a world where identity has become a weapon and where

In today 's society, we use certain objects such as machines every single day to perform jobs and tasks that would require human intelligence and judgment. Artificial Intelligence allow machines to send information in a matter of seconds, regulate ground and air traffic, guide missiles, and can perform any human task, but what if machines are create more like humans in the near future. Would we welcome them into society as ‘one of the guys ' or would we discriminate their kind? The excerpt on Machine Consciousness by William Lycan argues the points for and against the human acceptance of an intelligent machine.

The first is that a person or societies obligations to others are to reach past the traditional connotations of family, culture, and citizenship. The second element reminds the world that cosmopolitanism is not a theoretical concept in that it stretches to the singular level. It is not just human life that is treasured, but the specific lives that individuals lead and the message they portray. “So cosmopolitanism shouldn’t be seen as some exalted attainment: It begins with the simple idea that in the human community, as in national communities, we need to develop habits of coexistence: conversation in its older meaning, of living together, association” (Appiah 71). Now, Appiah is prompting the audience that diversity is not distinctively a barrier, but essentially it is the opposite, in that it is more of an incentive. From the basis of these two principles, Appiah identifies conversation as the primary means to build a world immersed in the cosmopolitan archetype. His work specifically identifies how to do this, which is based on identifying the likely misunderstandings with regards to cosmopolitanism and the benefits of immersing into the dynamic culture and creating

In today’s society, different cultures interact with each other every single day in many different environments. There are 195 countries in the world today, with most of them allowing people to freely travel from one to another and for people to emigrate to other countries. Think of how many different races there are in the world. According to the CIA World Factbook, there are six major races in the United States alone. A smaller country like Angola has five major race groups in their country, four of which are not major race groups in the United States. This certainly brings up the question, how should we all live so all of our different cultures can live together in harmony? The book Cosmopolitanism by Kwame Anthony Appiah is

Cosmopolitanism does have its limits in achieving its aims. It is necessary that one tracks the historical roots of cosmopolitanism to understand what visions it sets out to propose for IR. In Hellenic era, cosmopolitanism finds its meaning when Alexandrian intermarriage took place (Russel, 1945: 220), introducing the concept of ‘mankind as a whole’. Similar notion came into being in Stoicism in which people, apart from their own local identity, are united under a world citizenship (Nussbaum, 2010: 156). Kant, in the eighteenth century, furthered expounded on cosmopolitanism by suggesting a rule of cosmopolitan law and universal liberties (Held, 2010: 3).