I apologize if I don't have the same "ethical common sense" that is the reason for why that choice seems to be self evident. Did he think he could have swum out himself after the robot broke the window?
To me it actually seems that the robot made the right choice in trying to save Spooner. Is it just survivor's guilt that makes Spooner think the robot was wrong?
I think its not so much this particular incident by itself that turned Spooner against robots, but rather the implications of what might happen in other situations. To Spooner, not saving the little girl was proof of the cold and calculating nature of artificial intelligence. And he theorized that in the right situation the results of that cold calculation could be disastrous on another level. It turned out he was right.
Of course, it seemed that Sonny was a contradiction to his view point, making him both right and wrong. It seemed towards the end that Dr Lanning realized what was coming, but nevertheless he didn't give up on the idea of robots being truly peaceful and coexisting objects with human beings, thus building Sonny, an enhanced version of the NS5. By giving Sonny his extra processing system that enabled him to disobey the three laws in certain situations, he upgraded him to a robot that wouldn't fall into the trap that the others did, or would disobey Viki.
I think its not so much this particular incident by itself that turned Spooner against robots, but rather the implications of what might happen in other situations. To Spooner, not saving the little girl was proof of the cold and calculating nature of artificial intelligence. And he theorized that in the right situation the results of that cold calculation could be disastrous on another level. It turned out he was right.
Of course, it seemed that Sonny was a contradiction to his view point, making him both right and wrong. It seemed towards the end that Dr Lanning realized what was coming, but nevertheless he didn't give up on the idea of robots being truly peaceful and coexisting objects with human beings, thus building Sonny, an enhanced version of the NS5. By giving Sonny his extra processing system that enabled him to disobey the three laws in certain situations, he upgraded him to a robot that wouldn't fall into the trap that the others did, or would disobey Viki.
I think its not so much this particular incident by itself that turned Spooner against robots, but rather the implications of what might happen in other situations. To Spooner, not saving the little girl was proof of the cold and calculating nature of artificial intelligence. And he theorized that in the right situation the results of that cold calculation could be disastrous on another level. It turned out he was right.
Of course, it seemed that Sonny was a contradiction to his view point, making him both right and wrong. It seemed towards the end that Dr Lanning realized what was coming, but nevertheless he didn't give up on the idea of robots being truly peaceful and coexisting objects with human beings, thus building Sonny, an enhanced version of the NS5. By giving Sonny his extra processing system that enabled him to disobey the three laws in certain situations, he upgraded him to a robot that wouldn't fall into the trap that the others did, or would disobey Viki.
I'm guessing that in his moral code one should always value the life of an innocent child before and above that of an adult. I guess he figured anyone with a heart would try and save a child first before going after some 30 year old adult when both are there for the saving. The fact that robots didn't have this moral "code" he couldn't accept them.
I guess in figured if you go into a burning building and you go left you have the chance to save a child and if you go right you can try and save an adult but you only have time to make one attempt that one should always go for the child as they are innocent where an adult has already lived a chunk of their life and they aren't "innocent" the way a child is.
He considers this incapability to recognize the special protection for children that goes above that for adults a flaw and a reason to not trust them.
Deutschland hat die Weltmeisterschaft zum vierten Mal gewonnen! π©πͺπΊπΈ
Huh, I think I'm missing some of those sensibilities that people take for granted (or they're not as firmly etched in my mind as in others'). Though now that you say it, I can kind of recognize it as the "general rule."
I think I would also gravitate towards saving a child in an emergency situation, so do share that sense. However, when it was explained that the child had a much smaller chance of survival, I had the reaction that the robot was right to save the adult. If I was in that situation and could see that the child had a much smaller chance of survival, I feel like I might try to save the adult. (By the way, I don't know why the child had a smaller chance of surviving. Not able to hold breath as long? Full grown adult just has a stronger constitution/ can swim/ help get to the surface?)
I don't know what percentages or differences in percentages would swing it either way.
But say you are in that situation and you try to save the child, but don't manage to get her out alive. Now you have a dead child in your arms and receive the information that the adult would have survived. Don't you think you would feel you had made a mistake? I think I would say darn, I wish I had been better able to assess the situation.
Also, do you think that most people would have the "save the child" response that Will Smith's character had in that situation? Or would they would have tried to get the robot to save themselves?
I think most humans would instinctively go for the child for 2 reasons:
1) There are statistical outliers, like child molesters/murderers, but for the most part humans probably have an ingrained evolutionary prerogative to protect the children of our species. Some species, like turtles, don't raise their young. From the moment the egg hatches the turtle has to fend for itself. Mammals tend to be born defenseless, though, and the adults have to take care of the young until they can fend for themselves. This means that on some level we are hardwired to protect children. It's an instinctual thing on some level to protect the next generation because it increases the chance of the species survival, at least if you believe in evolution and the whole "survival of the fittest" thing.
2) Adults in good physical condition are typically more capable of taking care of themselves than children, and so they won't usually need to be coddled like a child would be. The robot could have punched the glass, ripped off his seatbelt, pulled him out of the car, and then immediately gone for girl with the expectation that an able-bodied adult could swim to the surface, for instance. The adult then swims to the surface, the robot then saves the girl and brings her to the surface, and then the robot drags both of the humans out of the water. But the robot didn't think like a human, which is why Spooner didn't trust it.
Good points, but remember that he was not exactly able bodied. He had lost an entire arm, and was most likely bleeding profusely. Not exactly fit to swim to the surface on his own.
shareIt depends on the culture and the situation.
Generally, humans are ingrained with the idea of protecting children, even when that may pose a risk to themselves.
In the First World we have this luxury because of the availability of other means of support.
"Women and children first", as on the Titanic. Presumably, someone would look after the tots if the adults (usually males) die.
Neolithic people had to be more pragmatic. If the adults die then the children have little or no chance.
We have a modern example, the airplane safety talk:
... put your own [oxygen] mask on first, then assist others.
Saw this film for the third time. Anyone thinking about this: Spooner has a necklace from the girl in the other car, where did he get that from? He knew that she wanted to be a dentist, but did she talk with her under water? And what about the calculations on survivability, it seems that he was serious injured in his left arm, shoulder and lung. Would that give a 45% possibility of survival? Though we do not know for sure, that he did not sustain the injury some other time.
shareI wonder if you have children. Spooner explained it perfectly. The robot moved towards the logical choice of who was most likely to survive. However, Sarah was someone's child who had barely begun to live. Even with an 11% chance of survival, a human would have at least tried. It's less about ethical common sense and more about society's view that children are innocent and should be protected.
I voted for Frenchie and Dia like a sex donkey on Xanax.
Elderly and disabled people are just as vulnerable and they don't have the same sort of importance placed on them. Even animals don't either.
shareHe's a cop. His instinct is to save the girl. He can't. He sees a robot. He says, "hey robot, save that girl!"
That's it.
Later on, yes, it's just survivor's guilt that's driving his psychology.
____________________________
Death is the road to awe.
He might have reasoned that had he not been there, the robot would have gone for the little girl. Because he was there, the robot sacrificed the little girl's chance at life to save him. He may subconsciously see it as his life having been 'bought' with the little girls life, which makes him feel responsible for her death, and weak, especially because of who she was. Men typically view women and children as being on a different playing field, and take no pride in beating them as it is assumed in their mind that their victory in a contest is a foregone conclusion. To need something badly enough you want to take it from either of these groups is bad enough. To have a stronger third party decide for you and force you to accept it is worse still. The fact that she was female AND a child, a cute one at that, is just pathetic to Will Smiths character. Rather than process the guilt he's feeling, its easier to deflect it onto the robot, and pretend like it was fault, to the point where he practically absolves the other driver, who caused the accident in the first place, of all responsibility and shifts it to the robot.
share[deleted]
In addition to good replies/reasons already noted there is the evolutionary imperative. It is seen in many animals where a parent will lure a predator away from the nest to protect the younger generation. A cop would have this psychology ingrained.
shareI think it's a bit of a macho trope really. It's like the fairy tale of romantic love, just a modern invention.
There used to be arranged marriage instead of "falling in love" and child mortality through the roof. Your children would die all the time while a young women could always create more and a young man could always provide for a family.
Evolutionary a young adult is far more "worth" than a child that can't survive or can't thrive on it's own.
I kind of despise this movie because of all the macho anti-intellectualism. Driving manually, sexism towards the partner, stupidity about robots stealing handbags... I tried to rewatch it recently but just couldn't.
While I understand your objections to the "macho anti-intellectualism" they are keeping you from enjoying a three-star sci-fi film. Your choice, of course. I have objections to war movies, for example, and will never see Saving Private Ryan no matter how good it is.
However, your dismissal of the proven evolutionary imperative observed in Nature might also be called anti-intellectual. A mother bird, for example, will lure a predator away from her young.
And, there are no modern fairy tales of romantic love; they are all OLD.
The robot knew since the girl was ginger, Spooners life was more important.
shareThe robot knew since the girl was ginger, Spooners life was more important.
shareI thought it was a weak-a$$ reason to hate robots. Hate the programmers.
share