Infact,this is not merely a madman's fantasy or story from fiction novels,for AI has already judging value of human's life in many area.In some hospital,doctors use AI to analyse patient's conditions,and decide who should get better treatment.In car industrys,self-drving cars have already used AI to make decisions in extreme conditions,which means let AI to decide who should be sacrifice if death is inevitable.In India,a court even use AI to sentence judgement for sinner.With so many exist example s,seems like it's impossible to stop this trend now.

Sounds horrible,right? However,I think the application of AI in moral decisions is an good advancement rather than a disaster, because although valuing human's life by figures sounds unacceptable,it do save more lifes than before.For the serious fact is that we can't save everyone with limited resources,and if we let this job for AI,at least it could help us save more people by dividing resources in an more efficient ways.

But we can't deny that this advancement also bring us many concerned problems.For nowadays every people have been taught that life is priceless,but the AI rank everybody's life with figures and datas. No doubt this would be a hard strike on traditional social morals.Becides,it would also caused many legal problems,if my parents was killed by a self-drving cars that try to avoid hitting a school buys,who should I blame for?the driver,the AI's designer,or the school bus driver?Who should be responsible for AI's decisions?What's more,which standard should AI use to rank people's life,is the life of rich superior than the poor,or is the value of civilians higher than criminals?these questions should be settled with laws and change in social morals before we massively using Al in life-matters decisions,or it will ruin our faith,our society,and perhaps,our morality itself.

List of artifacts:

1.lntrouductions

2.Definition of moral

3.Why should we care about moral?

4.A letter to reply questions:how can we improve our morality?

5.moral promblems caused by AI decisions：should a machine decide who to live？

6.Tram conundrum:will you kill the innocent people for greater good?

7.Impressions after reading sea wolf:the charming story of wild and morality.

The content of tram conundrum is simple:suppose there are 5 people tied to a tram track, and 1 person is tied to its backup track, and another runaway tram is speeding away, and you happen to have a joystick next to you, you can push the joystick to get the tram into the alternate track, kill that 1 person, save 5 people. You can also do nothing, kill 5 people and save 1 person. Seeing that the tram is about to enter the area, you have to make a decision in a very short time, kill 1 innocent person and save 5 people, or do nothing and watch those 5 people die？

Actually,the are two core argument in this conundrum.The first one is:can we value people’s life by numbers?And the second one is,can we sacrifice innocent people to save more,or so called “greater good?”

For me,i will support the first argument and rejected the second in theory,but i think we shouldn’t support any of there idea in practise.

Why am i support the first one and opposed the second one in theory?Because in real world,you have to face ethical dilemmas,not like tram conundrum that demand you sacrifice innocent people,but forced you to make a choice in different numbers of people. It’s very common in disasters.And facing these problems,the only things you can do is to save more people.While sacrifice innocent people to save more is totally different. You may argue that it’s not difference in consequence,you are right,but once you are using end to justify means, the basic of laws and morality won’t exist any more.

And why am i against both of them in practise?while because there are actually no clear line that help distinguish these two situations. As i said before,these two questions may have difference in ethical,but they have no difference for the victim. so once you allowed we use numbers to value human life in practice.eventually you will allowed innocent people be sacrificed too.

The main character of this story,captain Larson,was a pragmatism from his head to toes.he laugh at the humanism that the author(the lead of this article)believed,because he have only lived in jungle environment that only strong may live.And when the author are forced to live on the sailor ship,he found unwillingly he become more and more like Larson,using knife and fist to protect his property,using swearing rather than please to scold on each others.

But what make captain Larson different from a barbarian is,he is a genius,even with out proper education,he learned how to read and write,meanwhile have strong curiosity to math,psychology and philosophy.He even have a small library on his ship.But nobody could understand his thought on his ship,so his sharp mind was hide in his savage actions until the leads was accidentally saved by his ship.

And these successfully design made Larson alive.His words carrying the wisdom of a genius,as well as carrying the wild of the savage.Because his poor family and the cruel environment,he could never find a place to spread his talent,but spent his entire life on a sailor ship,hunting to fulfill rich people’s vainglory.He know his fate, know how unfair it is,but can’t find an opportunity to change it.Also,he is a Paradoxical combination of genius and savage.All these factors makes him the most successfully characters i have ever seen.

There are three factors that makes me obsessed with this book:the fierce conflict between civilize social moral and the cruel rules of nature,the charming and vivid characters that Jack London has cultivate,and the spirit of challenging everything,through the nature to the morals.without it i could never have enough food for thoughts to finish be this articles.

London, J., & Sinclair, A. (1994). The Sea-Wolf and other stories. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA12179720

I'm glad to hear your questions,and i will give you my personal answer to this questions.

While, in my opinion,We don’t have to improve our morality.i won’t try to teach you how to become a saint,because when it comes to private morality,there are no point in talking about right and wrong.Even when it comes to social moral,the definition of right and wrong was always changed throughout history.The slave society told you that slavery is right,some people are greater because they born with a golden spoon.The feudal society told you that burning so called witch is justice even they are just innocent people.The history proved they are wrong,it may proved our current morality value is wrong too. So this article is not telling you what should you morality is.Instead,it’s trying to let you understand what forms morality,whether it is social or private.And as long as you know how it forms and grows,you will have a more objective views on people with different morality.

Yours Sincerely

Jerry