Blade Runner: Ethics for Treatment of Sentients, by Raymond Cotter

Ray Cotter

Chris Boese

English 102 H

9-15-98

Sentient Rights

As usual, Webster manages to find a totally dry definition for “sentient”, as well as one which barely even skims over the surface of its meaning and importance: “capable of feeling: having perception”. Not very impressive treatment for the one thing which makes any of our societies possible. Sentience is the ability to ask questions, and the desire to seek out their answers. In the end, sentience caused languages to be created to further the quest for those answers. Some species, such as humans, have a higher drive to question things and seek out the answers to their questions, while others, such as dogs, are more likely to accept something and move along unless it truly does not make sense.

Sentience in Animals There are some who say that dogs, and animals in general do not think. I have seen various animals who were obviously thinking. For example, my dog will cock her head to the side and raise one of her eyebrows when she doesn’t understand something. It’s the same expression you see on the face of a kid as he says, “`splain!”, and she (my dog) stops making that expression as soon as she figures it out. Just like with people, you can almost see it in an animal’s eyes when something they’re puzzling out clicks into place. I’ve also seen a squirrel sit there looking at one of the so-called “squirrel-proof” bird feeders for several minutes, figuring out a way to get into it. Then it tried a couple of ways to get into it before taking a break and studying the feeder some more. Each one of its attempts built on the previous mistakes it made, until it managed to get inside the feeder through a series of acrobats. The scary thing is that the squirrel never made the same mistake twice (unlike many people, who will make the same mistake time after time). So apparently animals do think, they just do not share their thoughts with us due to various barriers, such as the language barrier.
Cybernetics Like these other animals, humans also ask questions, and seek their answers through whatever means possible. One of the hottest questions of the decade is “can we create life, and if we can should we?” Yet while these two questions are hotly debated, nearly everyone overlooks one just as important: “If we create life, what do we do with it?” While something which is created entirely by someone else should not be placed into servitude by default, cybernetics presents a different angle. Where a being created through genetics has no say in its creation, someone who accepts cybernetic implants is making a decision to change him or herself, and accepting whatever consequences that come along with it. If he or she must become a slave to someone for a period of time in order to pay for the implant/s, he or she already knows the price and agrees to pay it. Although the creation of a new being through genetics will most likely be more costly than a simple cybernetic conversion, the new organism is in no way indebted to its creators, for it never agreed to pay a price.
Sheltering our Creations This is not to say that it will not be predisposed to serve its creators for a time, but that it should not be forced to serve them. Why is it likely to want to follow the lead of its makers? Think of a child whose mother tells him to do something. Unless he is in an ornery mood, he is likely to follow her instructions. Why? Good question, but it is likely that the new creature will view its creators similar to the way we view our parents. After all, are they not our creators? Yet with a few exceptions children are not slaves to their parents, but rather their charges. This is the same role that humanity should extend to any species which it creates; We should be there to help, guide, and shelter our creations, and point them in the right direction, but not enslave them. Not only is this the morally right thing to do, but it is also the only way to ensure harmony between the species. But while raising the species as we would our children, we must not treat them as inferior beings, but as equals. Every family I have seen in which the parents raise their children in this way has been a close one, while families where the parents treat their children as inferiors typically are riddled with problems.
Consciousness Sentience cannot be discussed in this manner without bringing up consciousness, which is the ability to process these answers to get the answers for more complex questions, as well as the ability to feel emotions. The triggers for these emotions are based on the information gathered by the individual, as well as how he or she interprets that information. For example, something may be perfectly acceptable (say, polygamy) in one society (many Middle-Eastern societies), and may not be at all accepted in another society (such as the United States). Prejudice The important thing to remember is that one cannot be conscious if one is not sentient. One common misconception is that these two attributes are limited to people, or perhaps a few select other species. As shown earlier (see second paragraph), many animals are at least sentient, and some of them are conscious as well. Yet because they do not speak a language which we can understand, most people refuse to acknowledge their sentience, and some even insist that animals have no emotions. This is the excuse they often use to justify their mistreatment of various creatures to themselves and others. The more they abuse others, the stronger they believe this, for it forms a wall between their conscience and their actions. Others feel that just because something is different, it is inferior to humans. These reasons as well as countless others have been used to justify nearly all of the horrors committed by the human race, from wars, to genocide, and especially slavery. However these illusions are almost always shattered by the outside world (those who refuse to believe the illusions), and the truth shatters not only the illusions, but also those who lived their lives using them as guidelines.
The Right to Free Will But what happens when another species is not discovered, but created? Is this species automatically inferior to its creators? Does it owe them anything, as it did not ask to be created? The answer to both of these questions, which were probably used to justify the enslavement of the replicants in Blade Runner, is no. As soon as a species is created, it must be given the right to its own free will as well. Life cannot be given without freedom, whether this life is “artificial” or not. And how can life be artificial? Whether it was created in a test tube or a computer (as in the case of an actual artificial intelligence), is it not still alive? Life is life. Replace the “artificial” in artificial life with any of its synonyms, and it just doesn’t make sense. False life? Life simply is. It cannot be given any quality such as right or wrong, one or two; either something is alive or it is not. So regardless of its origins any creature which is alive should be treated with the respect due to any conscious being, until it is proven that it is not conscious. Then it should still be shown the courtesy due to any sentient creature. And hopefully by the time it is proven that something is neither conscious nor sentient, it will feel too strange for people to abuse something they have treated with respect for so long. Why would this be a good thing? Just take a look at all the things humanity has done to further itself at the expense of everything else. Somehow I find it hard to believe that many of these abominations would have been committed if we gave life, and other creatures the respect they deserve.

Regardless of its origins, any creature should be treated as an equal rather than as a tool or inferior being. The ability to think, to ask questions and seek out their solutions, has been demonstrated by countless animals across the world. Since they can think, they should be given the respect due to any sentient creature. Any being which we create through genetics, programming, or any other means, should immediately be given its freedom, and if it chooses to remain with us in the human society, it should be treated as an equal. The enslavement of any creature is a crime against life itself, and can be neither allowed nor excused. These guidelines are for the treatment of any living being, whether human or animal, natural, genetically engineered or artificial intelligence. Would it shake our society to its foundations if these guidelines were followed? Certainly. Would there be a period of turmoil before they could finally come into effect? Most likely. Would we all, human and non-human, be better off afterwards? That remains to be seen, but somehow I think so.
Feedback Links Blade Runner Links: 2019: Offworld