For me, rights are deeply related to demands in a social context. When something signals that it is in pain, it is demanding us to stop the action. We can, of course, choose to ignore the demand, which may damage the social context. So, when AI makes consistent demands, then we should heed them.

Diogenes is holed up in his barrel doing who knows what. Alexander pokes his head in and asks if there's anything he - the most powerful man in the world - could do for Diogenes, who replies: "you can move a few steps to the side because you're blocking my sunlight" 😂

If only it was easy to forget all the "important"/ make believe stuff. It would be nice to be happy like a cow on a grassy hill🐮. However, I think we are condemned to be human and humans worry about the make believe stuff.

Imagine a finite plane that flashes dots randomly at random times. Is there a way to say true statements about it? We could say logical statements. (A or not A). May be probabilistic statements for a while. We may be able to group them and add meaning (Group A survives if X% of lights are on)

For the most part, I agree with you. Recently I have been questioning, if conscience is 'deep'. Maybe it is 'shallow' in the sense that it is habit. Our daily life is impossible without social behavior, so the habit of being social is created. Of course, once a habit is made it is hard to break.

Haha😂. It will be a little challenging. It will just require undoing the 500 years of thought tying political philosophy from moral philosophy, but at least I have good company with Aristotle and Confucius.

Based on emotions, would put you in with Hume (not bad company). I have been fascinated with the idea of being moral as a skill or practice, which would de-emphasis the need to find a universal rule and emphasis the situation in front of you.

You could be on to a way to justify the division (in general) by using one's practical effect. However, I could imagine situations that would not follow your priority stages. Ex. you have some loose change in your pocket. Keeping it -> you = little happy, but giving it -> stranger = very happy

I would agree. In general, I think all learning is faking it until it is real. The question is can one fake being moral to the point of being indistinguishable from being moral, but still be faking it. Or is being moral something that changes them.

To me, if they are both important, then we have to admit that other people's happiness is important too. The rational egoist cannot give an argument that says future selves are important, but not other selves because we think of experience as the dividing line between selves and others.