Is it a morally right decision—for children to end one’s own life when one has been cursed from the very moment of birth?

\Originally posted in 2020*

We've seen the movie or game or show a million times: scientists try to create a virus that makes humans stronger and faster, and it ends up going horribly wrong when there's a containment breach and a zombie virus starts rampaging across the planet. But what are the ethics of actually trying to make something like this that works on humans? It's really just gene editing to make the human race better at surviving, but still.

It’s really just me talking shit

I mean it’s obviously not ok to eat a real person but what about if they’re French?

Suppose a voter supports a candidate for their domestic policies while opposing a military policy that foreseeably risks serious harm to civilians abroad. The alternative candidate would reduce that risk but has other policies the voter reasonably considers harmful.

Assume the voter understands both platforms, takes the likely harms seriously and has no viable candidate who avoids the tradeoff. This is a hypothetical about responsibility, not a claim about a particular election.

Voting bundles choices together, so supporting a candidate doesn't necessarily mean endorsing every proposal. Yet disapproving of one policy doesn't make it irrelevant to the moral assessment of the vote. A voter can reject a foreseeable consequence in intention while accepting its risk as part of the choice.

My starting position is that responsibility depends partly on the severity and likelihood of the harm, the alternatives available and the reasons for choosing as one does. Accepting a risk of grave harm for a minor personal benefit is harder to justify than accepting it to prevent a comparable or greater harm.

The strongest objection concerns individual influence. One ballot is extremely unlikely to decide a large election, and a voter who neither directs a policy nor decisively contributes to its adoption may be held responsible for more than they controlled.

That objection limits claims about causation, but an action can require justification even when it's unlikely to change the outcome by itself. The hard part is explaining what responsibility attaches to participation without treating every supporter as equally blameworthy for everything a government later does.

Knowledge matters too. A foreseeable policy announced during a campaign differs from an unexpected decision taken after the election, and a choice between genuinely constrained alternatives differs from one that ignores available evidence or dismisses the people likely to be harmed.

Blame for the original choice is also separate from obligations afterward. Even a justified vote might leave someone with reasons to oppose a harmful policy, support those affected or demand accountability from the candidate they helped elect.

Under what conditions does knowingly accepting a candidate's harmful policy as part of an electoral tradeoff become culpable participation, rather than a defensible choice among imperfect alternatives?

Every question I have is stupid, or at the very least stupidly asked. If someone can better ask the question for me better please feel free..
anyways;
So basically the question regards reparations..
The genesis of this thought was in regards to right media straight up lying and making completely new false claims for weeks on end. Then they make a single acknowledgment when they find out they are wrong, saying they are sorry and they’ll try to do better in the future.
But I was thinking, wouldn’t the real atonement be to make an equal allotted time to the real information as they did the false?
That is a media can of worms that is beyond me.
But it got me thinking of future reparations people in power and affluence might look like if done right/ appropriate. If enforced what would it look like? What redeeming thing could be gained?

First time posting to the sub. Please advice if it fits better elsewhere. Posted in full here, intentionally, original is a Substack two-piece.
https://extinctionati.substack.com/p/manjana-baby | https://extinctionati.substack.com/p/manjana-baby-ii

Due to long form and formatting issues, I find it best to ask first if this is the wrong room, and if it isn't, I will attempt a full post.

#ai #ethics #God #morality

full research project

Ethical Guardrails Beyond Computation: Why Advanced AI Requires External Moral Authority

Abstract

As artificial intelligence systems grow in capability, autonomy, and societal influence, existing AI ethics frameworks increasingly rely on technical constraints, procedural oversight, and internal governance mechanisms. This paper argues that such approaches are fundamentally insufficient once system capability exceeds meaningful human comprehension and control. At that threshold, ethics cannot be derived from within the system itself and must instead originate from an external moral authority capable of grounding accountability, dignity, and limits on power. Through a comparative systems analysis, this paper distinguishes capability from authority, demonstrates the structural failure of internalized AI ethics at scale, and examines revelatory ethics—specifically those found in the —as a model of invariant, human-centered moral constraint. The paper concludes that advanced AI governance requires ethical ceilings that technology cannot generate or enforce on its own.

1. Introduction

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence has reignited longstanding ethical questions concerning authority, responsibility, and moral decision-making. While contemporary AI ethics discourse emphasizes alignment, transparency, and accountability, these approaches assume that ethical governance can be encoded, enforced, or corrected internally through technical or procedural means.

This paper challenges that assumption.

It argues that once artificial systems operate beyond human interpretability or control, technical safeguards become insufficient, and ethical guidance must originate from outside the system itself. This is not a theological claim, but a systems-level one: no system can legitimately authorize or constrain its own power when it becomes functionally opaque to its creators.

2. Research Question and Methodology

Research Question

Can technical and procedural ethics sufficiently govern AI systems whose capabilities exceed human comprehension, or is an external moral authority required to bound their use?

Methodology

• Conceptual systems analysis
• Comparative ethics framework
• Cross-domain translation (technology, law, moral philosophy)
• Case-based reasoning

Out of Scope

• Proofs of metaphysical claims
• AI consciousness speculation
• Eschatological arguments

This paper focuses on governance, not belief.

3. Background: The Contemporary AI Ethics Paradigm

Modern AI ethics frameworks emphasize:

• alignment
• fairness
• robustness
• interpretability
• human-in-the-loop oversight

These frameworks assume:

1. Human oversight remains meaningful
2. Ethical values can be operationalized
3. Accountability can be preserved procedurally

However, these assumptions degrade as systems scale in complexity, autonomy, and speed.

4. The Capability–Control Gap

A central challenge in advanced AI systems is the capability–control gap:

System capability scales faster than human understanding, oversight, and moral deliberation.

Key contributing factors include:

• model opacity
• emergent behaviors
• automation bias
• delegation of decision-making
• diffusion of responsibility

As control erodes, ethical governance shifts from human judgment to procedural compliance.

5. Authority vs Capability (Core Conceptual Contribution)

Definitions

• Capability: what a system can do
• Authority: the legitimate right to decide, command, or justify outcomes

These are often conflated.

AI can increase capability dramatically.
AI cannot originate authority.

Authority requires:

1. legitimacy
2. accountability
3. moral standing

AI possesses none inherently.

Authority without accountability is not authority—it is concealment.

Any authority attributed to AI is delegated by humans and remains morally human-owned, even when obscured by systems language.

6. Why Internal AI Ethics Fail at the Edge

As systems become self-optimizing or self-modifying, internal ethical constraints face structural failure:

• constraints become optimization targets
• oversight becomes symbolic
• audits become post-hoc rationalizations
• responsibility dissolves into process

Ethics reduced to what is computable inevitably sacrifices what is human.

Invoking Occam’s Razor here is a misapplication: simplifying ethics to computational feasibility multiplies hidden assumptions rather than reducing them.

7. External Moral Authority as a Systems Requirement

When internal governance fails, ethical boundaries must originate outside the system.

Historical parallels:

• constitutional law restraining executive power
• medical ethics constraining medical capability
• laws of war limiting military force

In each case, power is bounded by norms it does not generate.

Advanced AI requires the same.

8. Revelation as Moral Guardrail (Case Study)

The provides an example of an ethical framework with properties uniquely suited to bounding power:

• moral invariance
• non-delegable human accountability
• prohibition of authority transfer
• inherent human dignity
• limits on power regardless of capability

Revelation does not automate decisions.
It preserves moral agency.

Its role is not to compete with technology but to constrain its use.

9. Comparative Framework

This contrast highlights why internal ethics struggle at scale.

10. Addressing Common Objections

“Religion is subjective”

All ethics are normative. Technical ethics are not neutral; they encode values implicitly.

“Pluralism makes external authority impossible”

Pluralism does not eliminate the need for limits—it intensifies it.

“Technology is neutral”

Tools inherit intent, framing, and consequence. Neutrality is a rhetorical illusion.

11. Implications for AI Governance

• AI must remain advisory, not authoritative
• moral responsibility cannot be automated
• ethical ceilings must be explicit and external
• governance must address authority, not just accuracy

12. Conclusion

As artificial systems grow in power, the defining question is no longer what they can do, but who is permitted to decide how they are used.

No system can answer that question about itself.

Once capability exceeds comprehension, ethical guardrails must come from a source outside the system—one that preserves accountability, human dignity, and moral restraint.

This is not an argument against technology, but against idolatry of capability.

I'm not saying that I believe it's a good thing, I just want to understand the negative effects that it can have, or why people have the views on it that they have

Hello, my mom is a funeral director and uses AI in her work. I on the other hand am pretty against generative AI and do not use it unless it’s wired into an app or website but will still try to go around the whole “AI overview” options.

Back to my mom…While using AI to help with computer work is one thing, I’d like to hear everyone’s opinions on one thing she does that rubs me the wrong way. She will take photos of the decedent and run them through ChatGPT to make a portrait of the person and improve lighting, image quality, etc. Despite asking ChatGPT to not alter the appearance of the individual, I do notice minute small changes in the person’s appearance that would be easily recognized by the person’s family that knows the individual better. I find it very much so against my morals to alter the image of a loved one in any way that isn’t traditional editing software that has been around for years. I told her if my obituary photo was ever edited with AI I would haunt my family from the grave 😅

What are everyone’s thoughts? Do you think a funeral director using generative AI to edit descendants’ photos is ethical?

As Sam Harris once said.........."Put your hand on a hot stove, don't like it? There's your morality."

Because regardless of how you FEEL about stuff, you can still feel PAIN, and doing anything that reduces/avoids the pain = universal ethics.

NOBODY wants to feel the pain.

Masochists are not yearning for pain. They are chasing perverted pleasure from the dopamine release after spanking, which is the opposite of pain.

Seriously though, are ethics nothing but our universal/biological/evolutionary/genetic attempt to get away from the pain of the body and mind?

Avoiding pain = objective ethics/morality, yes?

Title

The dilemma concerning art that whether art is inherently political or can exist otherwise. Do you think an artist has a strong moral obligation to speak against the state and endorse political stances for social change or does the personal or creative agency weighs over any such consideration?

The classic antinatalism debate is getting tired… The "paradox" comes from a real problem: we can't ask the child beforehand. But that cuts both ways. "They didn't ask to be born" is just as true as "they didn't ask not to be born," so consent can't settle this.

Do we realise that, in principle, both pro-life and anti-life folk are making the same kind of assumption?

A pronatalist ASSUMES that bringing children into the world is worthwhile, whether for the continuation of humanity, the propagation of life, or the possibility of a meaningful existence.

The antinatalists, by contrast, appear to ASSUME that bringing someone into existence is inherently harmful because it exposes them to suffering they never consented to experience.

Both positions make ASSUMPTIONS about the value of existence. Neither can simply presume to know what another person would want before that person exists. That’s where the argument falters😂

The distinction is that the argument seems to prioritise the suffering that life can entail, while the opposing argument considers the possibility of happiness, fulfilment, relationships, and the desire to continue living.

And empirical evidence complicates the assumption that existence is generally unwanted. Most people continue to live, pursue goals, form relationships, and express a desire to remain alive. Suicide, by contrast, is a relatively uncommon outcome, even though suicidal thoughts and suffering are real and should never be dismissed.

That does not prove that everyone is glad to have been born, nor does it settle the philosophical question of whether creating life is ethically justified. But it does challenge the ASSUMPTION that non-existence is necessarily preferable to existence.

Ultimately, we’re treating the possibility of suffering as a reason humanity should cease to exist, while assuming that this outcome is preferable for humanity itself.

So… what justifies that assumption, particularly when the people whose existence we’re speaking about cannot be presumed to share the conclusion?

I want to discuss my perspective and arguments about ethics in my writing. It is not a complete essay, just my thoughts written down and presented for discussion. Please note that this manuscript may contain language some find unsettling. Furthermore, I did not write this from a position of moral superiority or to condemn others; indeed, even as I wrote it, I was uncertain of my own standing and whether I might be acting hypocritically—for after finishing the piece and stepping away from my desk, I continued to cook and eat, effectively remaining subject to the very judgment I was critiquing. This manuscript aims solely to share a perspective, not to attack or disparage anyone. I hope readers will engage with it respectfully.

I can't advise you to be patient, or to keep a gentle temper, as you read this manuscript, or rather these lines of self-questioning. Nor can I advise you to tear down every norm and every faith. Because when you truly touch it, the only thing you will feel is the dizziness of freedom, thick with uncertainty. And even I have no answer to the self-questioning I find in that dizziness.

But there is at least one thing I can advise:

“Always hold on to your ability to ask questions. Doubt and question yourself, even in the smallest ways. Doubt what you most want to believe. Doubt some part of your own actions. Because a moment will come when it will be the only thing that can stop you from becoming a second Eichmann.”

Sincerely, akaiha