Whatmeworry4 t1_j24k3s5 wrote
Reply to comment by kfpswf in How the concept: Banality of evil developed by Hanna Arendt can be applied to AI Ethics in order to understand the unintentional behaviour of machines that are intelligent but not conscious. by AndreasRaaskov
I would disagree with her definition because I believe that the banality of evil is what happens when we do understand the full consequences of our actions, and just don’t care enough to change them.
Evil is not a cognitive error unless we are defining it as mental illness or defect. To me, true evil requires intent.
ConsciousInsurance67 t1_j24kikk wrote
Those consecuences long term are negative so there is a part of ignorance in that evil.
Whatmeworry4 t1_j24lhf8 wrote
Why do you assume that those consequences are negative for the person acting, or that they care? And how do you separate true ignorance versus willful ignorance?
RegurgitatingFetus t1_j24nhce wrote
And how do you detect intent, humor me.
Whatmeworry4 t1_j24o6bz wrote
Ok, the easiest way is to ask if the consequences were intentional, or it may even be documented. Now, why do you ask? Why do we need to detect the intent for the purposes of a theoretical discussion?
ConsciousInsurance67 t1_j24sfwe wrote
Legally and inherited from roman Rights, anything to be considered a crime needs: intentionality ( evil or not) and fault ( the wrongdoing itself that is maybe not born of evil intentions but brings pain and suffering, and therefore is bad ) example: murder ( evil- evil) v.s homicide in self defense (you kill someone but the motivation is not killing, the crime happens as a consecuence of protecting yourself . Of course it is still a crime even when the consecuences are not intentional .
I think the ethic rules for robots made by Asimov played around this; what should an AI do to protect us from ourselves?
Whatmeworry4 t1_j24v23v wrote
I am only referring to the intentionality to seek the consequences. True evil considers the consequences as evil and doesn’t care. The banality of evil is when you don’t consider the consequences as evil. The intent to cause the consequences is the same either way.
ConsciousInsurance67 t1_j284oji wrote
Thank you. Then, I see that sometimes the difference between true evil and banal evil is a social construct, "bad" behaviours are rationalised to be congruent with a good self image, ( "it was my job, I had to do it for the better" ) this happens when no universal ethics are displayed and I think we have a consensus of what are the human rights but there isnt an universal ethic for all humanity, that is a problem philosophy psychology and sociology have to solve.
SchonoKe t1_j25ddq3 wrote
The book in its entirety is closer to what you said than that quote.
The book talks about how Eichmann knew full well what he was doing and what was happening (he once even used his position to “save” some from the camps by broker a quid pro quo deal, IIRC managed to forget this fact during his trial because it was such a minor event to him personally) but cared far more about his career and doing his job well as it was assigned rather than doing the right thing.
SanctusSalieri t1_j25inxn wrote
It's also important that Eichmann was a lying sack of shit mounting a desperate legal defense and certainly participated willingly in everything he did and shared the Nazi ideology.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments