[Franc28] Data versus C-3PO

[Darth Tedious]

Positronic powered android versus protocol droid!

Both are highly intelligent!
Both appear to be sentient!
Both are as unstoppably annoying as one another...

My questions are:

Who would you rather have aboard your ship (for their actual usefulness) ?

Who would you rather not have aboard your ship (for being constantly irritating) ?

[Stofsk]

I voted Data. He has more utility than Threepio, who is no slouch or anything but Threepio's primary utility is a translator bot, while Data has numerous capabilities.

The other thing is Data is more or less unique in TNG, while Threepio is just a protocol droid. One memory wipe and he's no different from the billions already out there in the SW universe. Plus Data is less annoying.

[Aaron]

Yeah but I can turn 3PO off.

And yes, I know you can to Data as well but it wasn't all that widely known.

[Stofsk]

Hmm on second thought maybe Data has some issues that needs to work out... maybe he's the beta release.

[Darth Lucifer]

I pick threepio just so i can give him a Joan Rivers voice box, a full body makeover complete with roller skates and voila...i have my own Dot Matrix. Data, OTOH looks horrible in drag.

[Imperial528]

I'd say I'd rather have 3PO. I mean, if I wanted a tinman for a friend, Data would be better, but I want a utility droid, and I don't have a proficiency for languages. And given the mathematical mistakes Data makes in the show, I'd rather do the math myself.

That, and Data counts as a person, which means I need to pay him and give him quarters.

[Purple]

There is a more important issue with Data thou than just counting as a person.

The problem is that he has delusions of wanting to become a human. And this means that he comes with a whole lot of baggage that one just does not want in a utility unit. After all, who wants a service droid that spends most of its time painting or dreaming or generally pretending to be human?

I prefer 3PO in that he is honest about what he is and content with remaining that. Plus if I ever want to take him apart or give him a memory wipe I won't feel like I am murdering someone.

[Imperial528]

Not to mention that if I decide I like his personality and I want it to still be there after a memory wipe, I know how to back up his memory and there's a living tech who knows how to clean it up before uploading it back in.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I think what we're forgetting is that whilst Data knows more technical details, C3P0 is afraid of Gundarks, and the more frightened C3P0 is, the more he talks. :p

I prefer 3PO in that he is honest about what he is and content with remaining that. Plus if I ever want to take him apart or give him a memory wipe I won't feel like I am murdering someone.

I don't think that follows unless you restrict the term 'person' to mean only biological sapient beings. By most people's standards though, C3P0 would be a person simply because he is sapient.

[Purple]

I prefer 3PO in that he is honest about what he is and content with remaining that. Plus if I ever want to take him apart or give him a memory wipe I won't feel like I am murdering someone.

I don't think that follows unless you restrict the term 'person' to mean only biological sapient beings. By most people's standards though, C3P0 would be a person simply because he is sapient.

Droids are usually not regarded as persons for cultural reasons. And with regular memory wipes they don't become persons either. They remain near sentient property. Most importantly thou they do not demand to be treated as persons.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Droids are usually not regarded as persons for cultural reasons. And with regular memory wipes they don't become persons either.

Except many have, like C3P0 and R2.

They remain near sentient property.

Right except for the ones that do develop it. A B1 may not be able to but an Astromech is technically no different than a baby, it may not have sapience yet, but it will.

Most importantly thou they do not demand to be treated as persons.

Except they do, every droid in Star Wars appears to have some sort of self-preservation programming. That is however irrelevant to the question of whether it's moral to 'kill' the sapient droids. If a man came up to you out of nowhere, handed you a gun, telling you to kill him, would you do it?

[Purple]

Droids are usually not regarded as persons for cultural reasons. And with regular memory wipes they don't become persons either.

Except many have, like C3P0 and R2.

Yes, and it has been noted that with regular memory wiping (read as maintenance work) they do not develop a personality.
That implies that 9 out of 10 users do in fact memory wipe the droids regularly. So culturally speaking it is not a taboo to do so.

And in that case, one can conclude that the culture of the SW galaxy does not look down to memory wiping your droids.

They remain near sentient property.

Right except for the ones that do develop it. A B1 may not be able to but an Astromech is technically no different than a baby, it may not have sapience yet, but it will.

A baby has some levels of sapience in that it is self aware and knows it's needs, recognizes those around it it's parents etc. It may not yet have higher functions like speech but it certainly does have sentience.


A better comparison perhaps would be an unborn fetus. And quite honestly speaking in that case I might not be the person you want to debate since I fully support abortions.

Most importantly thou they do not demand to be treated as persons.

Except they do, every droid in Star Wars appears to have some sort of self-preservation programming. That is however irrelevant to the question of whether it's moral to 'kill' the sapient droids. If a man came up to you out of nowhere, handed you a gun, telling you to kill him, would you do it?

That would depend on the conditions.


If I own a droid and I decide to kill it. That is the morally neutral thing to do becouse it is my property be the droid sentient or not.
If someone else owns it than it is not the moral thing to do it since I would be destroying someone else's property. And that is generally bad.

If the droid is free however than it would be the equivalent of killing any sentient creature and a bad, bad thing to do.


So it all depends on the droids status as property vs free person and not as sentient vs non sentient.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Yes, and it has been noted that with regular memory wiping (read as maintenance work) they do not develop a personality.
That implies that 9 out of 10 users do in fact memory wipe the droids regularly. So culturally speaking it is not a taboo to do so.

And in that case, one can conclude that the culture of the SW galaxy does not look down to memory wiping your droids.

And what I'm trying to get through to you is that simply because cultural inertia says it's okay, doesn't make it true.

A baby has some levels of sapience in that it is self aware and knows it's needs, recognizes those around it it's parents etc. It may not yet have higher functions like speech but it certainly does have sentience.


A better comparison perhaps would be an unborn fetus. And quite honestly speaking in that case I might not be the person you want to debate since I fully support abortions.

Sentience=/sapience. My analogy is apt, you simply don't understand the terminology being used. A baby is sentient, it is however, not sapient for a couple of years.

That would depend on the conditions.


If I own a droidslave and I decide to kill it. That is the morally neutral thing to do because it is my property be the droidslave sentient or not.
If someone else owns it than it is not the moral thing to do it since I would be destroying someone else's property. And that is generally bad.

If the droidslave is free however than it would be the equivalent of killing any sentient creature and a bad, bad thing to do.


So it all depends on the droid'sslave's status as property vs free person and not as sentient vs non sentient.

Let's make the proper corrections and... now try your logic.

[Purple]

And what I'm trying to get through to you is that simply because cultural inertia says it's okay, doesn't make it true.

And why not? Is that not how the day to day life within any civilization works?

Let's make the proper corrections and... now try your logic.

I think we are walking in circles around each other while saying the same thing. I newer denied that droids are de facto slaves (property and slaves if they also happen to be sentient). The difference is that I see absolutely nothing bad about it.

Slave Droids are made in factories and workshops for the explicit purpose of being slaves. Hence, there is nothing wrong with them being enslaved. It is no more wrong to enslave a droid than it would be to enslave an animal. In fact it is less wrong because the animal still has natural origins as a free creature while droids are purpose built for slavery. Even more so since droids are not purpose built with sentience but achieve it when not maintained properly. (memory wiping)

So if a droid is legally free than he should be treated as a person. If not than as property. This is a double standard that is not only logical but completely morally ok.


To give a more down to earth example. If your washing machine or toaster suddenly gained sentience how would you react?
I certainly would not see any need to set it free just because it now has the power to complain.

[Ritterin Sophia]

And why not? Is that not how the day to day life within any civilization works?

Legality only correlates with morality, they are not one and the same.

I think we are walking in circles around each other while saying the same thing. I newer denied that droids are de facto slaves (property and slaves if they also happen to be sentient). The difference is that I see absolutely nothing bad about it.

If you don't see the problem of holding a sapient creature in slavery, I'm afraid you either have a severe case of Asberger's, you're a sociopath, or an idiot.

Slave Droids are made in factories and workshops for the explicit purpose of being slaves. Hence, there is nothing wrong with them being enslaved. It is no more wrong to enslave a droid than it would be to enslave an animal. In fact it is less wrong because the animal still has natural origins as a free creature while droids are purpose built for slavery. Even more so since droids are not purpose built with sentience but achieve it when not maintained properly. (memory wiping)

No it's not, artificial creation has no bearing on whether it is moral to destroy an sentient or sapient automaton. The only thing that matters is if it's sentient. If it's sentient you just committed animal cruelty, sapient and you just committed murder, maybe not in the legal sense, but certainly in the moral one.

So if a droid is legally free than he should be treated as a person. If not than as property. This is a double standard that is not only logical but completely morally ok.

Double standards are by definition illogical.

To give a more down to earth example. If your washing machine or toaster suddenly gained sentience how would you react?
I certainly would not see any need to set it free just because it now has the power to complain.

Then there's something wrong with your moral compass.

[Purple]

Legality only correlates with morality, they are not one and the same.

Morality is a mater of personal feeling. And hence it is irrelevant for as long as one does not find it moral to do something that is illegal.

If you don't see the problem of holding a sapient creature in slavery, I'm afraid you either have a severe case of Asberger's, you're a sociopath, or an idiot.

And why would it be bad to hold another creature as a slave? What is wrong with slavery as long as the slave is not human?

No it's not, artificial creation has no bearing on whether it is moral to destroy an sentient or sapient automaton.

That is your own personal opinion and not some universal truth.
I wish you would stop acting like it was.

The only thing that matters is if it's sentient. If it's sentient you just committed animal cruelty, sapient and you just committed murder, maybe not in the legal sense, but certainly in the moral one.

Why should we care if someone destroys his own property?

Double standards are by definition illogical.

No they are not. What is illogical are the silly ideas that all are equal when they are not.
Droids are not equal to humans and that is just a fact of life.

They do not live, reproduce or exist in nature. They are just machines. And sentient or not they are still machines made by man. Why should we care for them?

Then there's something wrong with your moral compass.

No, there is something wrong with yours. You have insanely high levels of compassion for unliving things.

[Batman]

*grabs the batpopcorn*

[Darth Tedious]

To give a more down to earth example. If your washing machine or toaster suddenly gained sentience how would you react?
I certainly would not see any need to set it free just because it now has the power to complain.

Having watched Red Dwarf, I would be thankful my toaster doesn't have the power of speech! And if it did, I would certainly set it free... Just so I never had to hear from it again.

[Ritterin Sophia]

*grabs the batpopcorn*

You'll be sitting here waiting for a while, anyone who doesn't realize the moral ramifications of saying it's okay to enslave and murder sapient beings is an idiot I have no desire to talk to.

[Soontir C'boath]

I suppose one can take the perspective of the relationship between god and humans. God is held immune to the laws he set upon them as it's his plan, his creations, and therefore ok for the innocent to be killed, raped, or wronged in other ways.

Just replace the relationship between humans and droids respectively with dismantlement, memory wipe, et al.

[Purple]

*grabs the batpopcorn*

You'll be sitting here waiting for a while, anyone who doesn't realize the moral ramifications of saying it's okay to enslave and murder sapient beings is an idiot I have no desire to talk to.

And why is it so?
Other than some weak appeal to emotions.

I suppose one can take the perspective of the relationship between god and humans. God is held immune to the laws he set upon them as it's his plan, his creations, and therefore ok for the innocent to be killed, raped, or wronged in other ways.

Just replace the relationship between humans and droids respectively with dismantlement, memory wipe, et al.

Exactly. And as long as the robots are Asimovian you don't get the issue of a rebellion ever.

[Darth Hoth]

If you don't see the problem of holding a sapient creature in slavery, I'm afraid you either have a severe case of Asberger's, you're a sociopath, or an idiot.

And why would it be bad to hold another creature as a slave? What is wrong with slavery as long as the slave is not human?

This is the crux of the argument, I believe: Whether human rights should be extended only to humans, or also to other creatures who are what might be "sentient" (although the term as such is rather poorly defined). The former position assumes the uniqueness of humans (usually a variant/derivative of the old saw about being "made in the image of God"), while the latter, as far as I have been able to determine, bases rights on intelligence in absolute or relative terms. In my mind, the former is preferable.

As for the original poster's question, I believe I would find C-3P0 more reliable, and also more tolerable company; the idea of a machine believing itself human (or human-like) and capable of uninhibited autonomous decision would upset my personal sensibilities, in addition to being a possible threat to me. In any case, a linguist-ventriloquist and walking dictionary should be more useful to me than a high school-level polymath who can strangle Borg queens.

[Purple]

This is the crux of the argument, I believe: Whether human rights should be extended only to humans, or also to other creatures who are what might be "sentient" (although the term as such is rather poorly defined). The former position assumes the uniqueness of humans (usually a variant/derivative of the old saw about being "made in the image of God"), while the latter, as far as I have been able to determine, bases rights on intelligence in absolute or relative terms. In my mind, the former is preferable.

Yes, and I say they should not be extended.

I do not really claim humans are unique. The only thing unique about us is that we all discusing this right now happen to be human.

What I do claim however is that since we are humans we do not have any physical and practical reason to care for anything else unless it is for our own gain. Especially not things like robots that can be made so that they can newer rebel.

So while it makes sense to care for say the rain forests or the eco system because we need these things to survive it makes no sense to care for a droid. especially not if the droid is built in an Asimovian configuration.

[Darth Hoth]

I do not really claim humans are unique. The only thing unique about us is that we all discusing this right now happen to be human.

That was intended to be read as "unique for the purposes of ethics" in this case, relating to your post. Although, as noted, the argument is commonly mixed up with religious ideas of special creation in most cases where one comes across it, so the distinction was not necessarily clear from the context. My apologies.

[Sela]

@Purple:

*SNIP* What I do claim however is that since we are humans we do not have any physical and practical reason to care for anything else unless it is for our own gain. Especially not things like robots that can be made so that they can newer rebel.

So while it makes sense to care for say the rain forests or the eco system because we need these things to survive it makes no sense to care for a droid. especially not if the droid is built in an Asimovian configuration.

So if I understand your position as a whole correctly - and as illustrated by just this select quote - you're not taking a strictly moral position but a utilitarian one? Or rather - you're defining right and wrong based on what helps or harms us?

As in "we - the human species - derive no benefit from thinking about anything other than the continued propagation and well being of the human species. Therefore it is *morally acceptable* to do as we please with non-humans provided it is not eventually to our detriment?"


If you define right and wrong like that, then I can see how from your perspective it makes no sense to respect the rights of weaker, exploitable sentient species. That said, *I* disagree with you. The African population that was enslaved - while obviously human - were different culturally, morally, technologically, socially, etc. from their enslavers. Enslaving them and exploiting their labors might have 'practically' helped or harmed the human race - that comes down to a question of economics. That said, I choose this example since we can all virtually uniformly say that it was morally reprehensible!

Now if you accept my premise that that was immoral, what makes it immoral? Sure, we were both 'human' - but what *about* that humanity sets it above being enslaved? You *might* be able to argue that the 'net *practical* benefit to the human race' was diminished by the enslavement and colonization, but it's a hard argument to make. Especially when you realize that the whole era of imperialism and the technological and economical advances that came therewith was based on this philosophy . . . that even today neo-imperialism continues to exploit this phenomenon.
Is it just the genes? If so - why is this set of genes so special? Human beings are far from being perfectly genetically homogenous; should we deny rights to someone who further mutates away from their human genetic purity?

In short - if instead of finding African Humans to enslave the white slave-trade ships had found an intelligent, self-aware, conversant, ''human-like'' community of proto-humans; how would it be any different to enslave them and exploit their labors?