Philosophy And Ethics For Computing And Information Science (Research Paper Sample)

PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS FOR COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
Name:
Tutor:
Course:
College:
City:
Date:
Introduction
Bellows (2009) in his article “Categorizing Humans, Animals, and Machines,” believes on the uniqueness and superiority of humans as the driving force towards the retailed innovation and the use of different machines. In the same article, Bellows (2009) describes humans differently from other animals as rational and conscious beings that are capable of standing alone (Temple & Johnson 2009). In other words, humans are intellectually different from animals and biologically separated from machines (Temple & Johnson 2009). This therefore means that the debates about the overlapping relationships between humans, animals and machines are still tumultuous and not easily definable (Bellows 2009). The argument by Bellows also finds support from the classical philosophers who believe that the relationships between humans, animals and machines have always been hierarchical with humans on the top and animals and machines falling below (Birke, Linda & Parisi 2008). From the classical philosophers’ point of view, the three categories, humans, animals and machines have always remained distinct and leave no space for overlapping or comparable characteristics.
Michael Denton (2001) in his article “The Spiritual Machine,” believes that the fundamental properties and traits that make human beings machine-like are almost as old as human thought. Michal draws upon the concept of magician’ model of likeness to capture the essential qualities of the living reality it represented (Chris, Cyborg & Citizen 2002). In other words, the magician’s model of likeness made Michael to concede that living things are similar in importance to mechanical systems and highly analogous to machines (Francione 2003). On the other hand, it human being and other animals are not machine-like in their unique designs, or rather if human beings, animals and machines differ in all the respects mentioned, then the important aspects of human beings like artificial life, artificial intelligence and other unmentioned characteristics are likely to be instantiated in mechanical systems (Fuller, Sarah & Canfield 2003).
There are several contracting statements about the differences and overlaps between humans, animals and machines, and the true studies indicated above are only typical examples of the reality (Birke, Linda & Parisi 2008). Classifying animals as humans find rejection from both scholars and theorist more than the recognition of machines as human. The statement, “you resemble an animal” may not sink well in some people given the fact that they recognize themselves more superior than other creatures. The statement “you resemble and animal” may be interpreted abusive and full of contempt while on the other hand, calling a person a machine may appear more of a complement (Fuller, Sarah & Canfield 2003). The feelings people attach to machines are more positive then the feeling they attach to animals and this is one of the reasons why people give different treatments or care to machines compared to animals. Consider, for example, the kind of treatment given to a car and that given to a donkey (Birke, Linda & Parisi 2008). Even though the two perform almost similar functions (transportation), you will notice that man is more cautious when handing his or her car than when handling a donkey. Such differences and other overlapping characteristics are of interest to this study.

Research question
From the discussion under the introduction section, it is already clear that there are contradicting opinions and varying views about the classification of humans, animals and machines (Birke, Linda & Parisi 2008). While some scholars and theorists believe that there are close connections between the three factions, other theorists understand the characteristics of humans, animals and machines to be distinct and non-overlapping (Chris, Cyborg & Citizen 2002). This study does not dispute that fact that there could be overlapping characteristics between humans, animals and machines, but rather sets forth to identify and elaborate on such overlapping traits that make the three categories comparable.
The emergence of the mechanistic paradigm, a modern theory that relates nature with the development of organisms, revealed fundamental analogy between living things and machines (Temple & Johnson 2009). The modern mechanistic paradigm is based on the common understanding of mechanic laws in which case the functioning of all material objects, both living and non-living, can be explained in terms of structural arrangements and movement of body parts (Donna, Cyborgs & Women 2007). In his own words, Rene Descartes states, “I believe the body to be nothing but a machine…, and that is why we can see the clocks, artificial fountains, and other important machines that only man can make move as designed (Chris, Cyborg & Citizen 2002).” Precisely, could there be differences and overlapping characteristics between man, animal and machine? And if such differences and overlaps exists, at what level can man and animal be considered a machine, or is it possible for man and animal to be replaced with machines?
The open discussion about the modern version of machine is based on the understanding that machines operate as animals or rather humans can be transformed into machines through the process known as animalization (Donna, Cyborgs & Women 2007). The history of man is considered inferior because some people were consider less equal and more of animals than others, for the example the relationship that existed between barbarians and slaves (Chris, Cyborg & Citizen 2002). The experiences that the slaves had as well as the Iraqi detainees made them to be classified as anthropological machines. Most of the duties that were performed by these groups of individuals reflected the experiences that animals go through when they interact with humans with no feelings and emotions.
The classifications given in this study retails around human or animal’s characteristics like life, conscious, language, feelings and emotions. Before going deep to discuss the differences and overlapping characteristics, there is need to understand the various opinions presented by scholars and how such opinions open space for further investigations (Chris, Cyborg & Citizen 2002). Descartes is one of the philosophers whose views are widely used as the foundation for similar studies. In his understanding, Descartes believes humans are represented with characters that are superior to those of animals and machines. Superiority in this context introduces another trait that is of more importance, rationality. According to Descartes, whatever is rational should have a language and because neither animals nor machines have language, they cannot be rational and therefore lacks the important characteristic of human (Chris, Cyborg & Citizen 2002). However, Descartes argument is limited to language and rationality, and does not recognize the technological progress that has taken place. With the incorporation of technology, we now have human-like machines with almost similar characteristics. People have created highly intelligent and rational human robots that also have life (Donna, Cyborgs & Women 2007). The main question that remains unanswered is, “by the virtue that language and rationality defines what is human and what is not human and given the fact that these human created robots cab speak and are also rational, do they qualify to be human?
This research uses the perspectives of computer science to identify the differences and similarities between man, animals and machine (Chris, Cyborg & Citizen 2002). Even though computer science is the basic area of focus, the study research will also considered questions linking to practicality, philosophical and ethical believes (Bellows 2009). After the literature, findings and discussions, the research ends with a conclusion, which draws the similarities and differences between man, animal and machine.

Literature review
Man and Animal
From the natural law of science, animals could be intelligences, but not the same levels of human intelligence. According to Premark (2004), different animals have specialized in some forms of intelligence, which to some level make them human-like. For example, bees are known to send messages by either performing a dance, producing scent or making sound while flying. Similarly, a nuthatch is perhaps the only animal that can remember the cache location of many acorns (Birke, Linda & Parisi 2008). From these two examples, we can realize that even though the animals have intelligence, the condition is limited to their specialized functions and cannot be passed on to other functions.
In our everyday lives, we have observed or rather heard instances where a chimpanzee mimics the actions of another chimpanzee. Even though there is effective message sent through this form of action that an animal can mimic and learn from the environment just like human beings, teaching has never been encountered in the animal kingdom (Birke, Linda & Parisi 2008). Precisely, intelligence among animals has never been flexible since they can only learn from their own experiences unlike human beings (Bellows 2009). In general, learning through imitation could be the best approach towards making humanoid robots because the approach provides a major distinction between animals and human beings.
Apart from intelligence, Premark presents a case where language can be used to explain the difference between animals and humans. In this context, Premark argues that no single animal is known to use spoken language...