Corey DeAngelis

Someone is shy

Corey hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Corey DeAngelis
Posted over 2 years ago
Can true altruism exist in humans?
I know that the act could benefit the performer, but what I am talking about is the intentions of the performer. I believe that they know either consciously or unconsciously the benefits that could result from the act. I propose that these perceived "benefits" alter the decision to act or not to act.
Noface
Corey DeAngelis
Posted over 2 years ago
In what practical ways can African states tackle the issue of poverty and unemployment amongst its young people?
That makes a lot of sense. Empowerment does look like the best solution to any economic problems in Africa or other economically disadvantaged locations. Africa has access to specific types of resources and once the people learn to capitalize on these endowed resources, they should be able to find some type of competitive advantage. They could even partner up with multinational corporations and essentially attain the free R&D associated with the partnership. That being said, they need to make sure there is an economic system in place that will support privatized businesses; if this is not the case, then this is where countries should focus on providing assistance.
Noface
Corey DeAngelis
Posted over 2 years ago
The plausibility of artificially intelligent robots becoming conscious and therefore becoming slaves of humans and the ethical implications.
I like this hypothetical scenario; it creates a thought experiment that makes us understand why forced labor is unethical. I would like to start out by defining person. Some individuals use the word "person" interchangeably with the word "human," but that definition focuses on biology and that can become troublesome. I define a person to be an individual that has the ability to make rational decisions. If we define person in this way, we can say that robots have the potential to become "persons." This is where the ethical dilemma comes in. If we can create a being that is conscious and makes decisions, then we would have a problem with enslaving that "person." But why do we have a problem with slavery? Things in life are unethical because of the fact that they create suffering. If forced labor makes the robots suffer, then the forced labor would be unethical (same reason why factory farming is unethical; the animals suffer because of it). Therefore, the solution to the ethical dilemma in this experiment is simple: do not program the robots to have the ability to suffer.
Noface
Corey DeAngelis
Posted almost 3 years ago
Is it right to profit from addiction? Is it right to profit from harm?
From an ethical perspective, I'd like to look at this issue based on the categorical imperative. The producers of harmful products are treating consumers merely as a means to an end; that "end" is profitability. One can argue for harmful producers by saying that the "greater good" is achieved by economic growth outweighing the harm done to consumers, but that is difficult to measure, and utilitarian arguments can get ugly (e.g. if you kill a person to steal their organs in order to save 4 other people). We can also conclude that it is wrong based on the intentions of the producers. Since we can assume that the producers know about the harm of their own products, we can conclude that the producers are harming the consumers intentionally; they make a choice to allow people to use their product knowing the consequences.
Noface
Corey DeAngelis
Posted almost 3 years ago
Will Automation Lead to Economic Collapse?
That is the premise of my argument; my argument is based on a purely economic perspective; no emotions involved. You give a certain scenario and state that the prior is "better" than the latter. How do you measure better? I use the one dollar, one vote metric; you do not. The cost to society would be less than the gain; as others have said, job creation would move towards different sectors and prices would be pushed downward (the income effect of price change should be noted here). It's really simple.
Noface
Corey DeAngelis
Posted almost 3 years ago
Will Automation Lead to Economic Collapse?
We should approach this topic from a pure economic perspective and the best way to do that is to measure the overall welfare of the economy before and after automation. We can all agree that, because of automation, there would be gains to certain groups and losses to other groups. We should notice that, if the gains are of greater absolute value than the losses, then the argument must support automation. First of all, we should look at why producers look towards automation. It is because of the fact that they are trying to reduce costs and produce their product at the lowest possible price. In other words, they are trying to achieve competitive advantage in order to gain market share and increase profitability. This act will eventually lower the prices of the products for consumers. From this, we can see that automation causes a gain for the producers (businesses) and a gain for the consumers (note that people that work at businesses are also consumers). The problem with automation arises from the fact that people lose their jobs as a result. This is the loss associated with automation (note that the people being laid off are also consumers of other products). So we can see that automation provides the economy with large gains to large groups (producers and consumers) but causes a loss to a small group (laid off workers). This is where the emotional argument against automation comes in. The individual that is laid off may suffer more in absolute value (loss) than a certain individual gains from the process of automation. We should notice that the companies are better off with automation, but would still be better off even if they were to pay these few existing employees their salaries until they died (sure, they would have to pay these people for not doing the work, but the long run benefits would still outweigh these short run costs). In other words, consumers gain, producers gain, and some workers lose, but the economy experiences a net gain.