A machine cannot be a person. When all is said and done the simple fact remains
that a machine will still be a machine—made from mechanical, synthetic parts. It may
talk like a person, walk like a person, feel like a person, a machine could look like a
person, exercise reason (or the lack thereof) like a person, it could create like a person,
love and hate, but it would not be a person.
The council will allow talk of machines with self-awareness and machines that are
able to create art and speak a language, however no machine will ever be capable of
moral judgement. This stems from the fact that a machine, theoretically speaking, is
immortal. A machine need never worry about growing old and senile and eventually
facing the grave. A machine, given the right instructions on self-repair, could find a
limitless supply of new components which it could fashion for itself and as such live
indefinitely.
This is not to imply a machine could not be ‘killed’ in the same sense that people
are killed. It would be easy enough to take any sort of weapon to a machine and destroy
its components to the point that it would be impossible to rebuild. However the ability to
be killed does not render something moral. This death is something that can be
prevented. Through sound judgement made in regard to one’s own self-interest it is easy
enough to avoid situations in which one would face bodily harm, thus insuring the
longevity of one’s existence.
It is this immortally that would supercede any sort of moral judgement a machine
could ever possess. Time means nothing to an immortal. A machine could spend
thousands of years creating a statue that is in every way better than Michlango’s David,
1
yet how could it be perceived as such? Michlango had a moral lifetime in which to
complete his masterpieces, making his work that much more spectacular.
Let it also be assumed that this same machine that creates a ‘better’ David
becomes so incensed that public opinion is still in favor of the original that it goes to New
York and destroys Michlango’s priceless creation. Every judge in the world would agree
that this is a crime, but not one warranting death. This machine would be tried and
sentenced to (for the sake of exaggerating) fifty years.
In a court of law this machine would be able to laugh, and rightly so, at a sentence
of fifty years. What is fifty years to a being that knows no expected life span? Any
person could break down and cry at the idea of fifty years of the life ‘lost’ behind bars.
However this machine would not bat a synthetic eyelash at such a judgement. Even if it
were to serve two thousand years in prison the walls of the cell would fall down around it
long before it would face death.
This fifty years would pass as a year would pass for a person, perhaps less. The
machine would be released from its imprisonment still firmly believing that its creation
far surpassed that of Michlango and that it had done no wrong by destroying that which if
felt was inferior. ‘Who could claim Michlango’s superiority now? I, a machine, am the
greatest sculpture of all time.’
The machine was acting in its best interest, which is what it would be created to
do. What would be the point of creating a machine that did not act in its own best
interest? It could possible rip off its own arm and beat itself to death with it if such
precautions where not made in the initial stages. What advantages does the machine get
from admitting Michlango’s dominance of skill? None. But if it can somehow prove it is
2
greater than those that have come before many contracts would come its way. Who
would not want the services of the greatest sculpture of all time? It could charge
outrageous fees, for who could challenge its dominance? Any pieces that could be better
it could destroy. Generations after it was released most people would just consider the
imprisonment an unfortunate draw back of a tragically misunderstood artist. Thousands
of years later people might not even remember the name of Michlango.
It is this meaningless of time that would prevent this council from giving a
machine person status. The effects of a long life are far-reaching. It changes the very
nature of a being for that being to be assured that there is no Grim Reaper with their name
on a list. The immortal nature of their life prevents moral judgement.
It has long been believed that person-like beings with the added trait of being
immortal are not human. Vampires have long represented this fear of immortal beings.
A vampire is originally a person. Yet a vampire becomes a vampire though some
mystical transformation (many myths do not agree on this point). In all myths the
vampire is no longer a person, be nasfaratu, undead, vampire or any other name, there is a
distinction made between a vampire and a person. They are not people.
In most legends vampires are considered evil. This could be a result of their
supposedly evil creation, but as it is, for the most part unknown, their creation, like that
of a machine, will not be observed. Also, their method of sustaining life (also considered
evil), like that of the machine, will be not be observed.
The basic element in the numerous vampire myths is that vampires are not people.
They were, at one time, but in becoming a vampire they transcend mortality, transcend
personhood.
3
“The more immortal you become the less human you become,” a man once said
and it cannot be denied that the ideas of humanity and person are inter linked. A
machine, demonstrating all of the characteristics of a person would still like the
fundamental part of the experience of living: Death.
4