Utilitarianism ethics is basically from the class of normative ethics and in a meaningful explanation we could say that it measures ethical existence of anything on the grounds of how much happiness does it provides to how many maximum numbers of people. e.g. an action is doing good to 100 people out of 150 people so it is good even if it is wrong according to the law or any society moral values similarly if it is doing bad to the same above mentioned number of people i.e. 100 it is wrong even if it is right by the law or moral values (de Lazari-Radek and Singer, 2017).
The above taken case study is somewhat a very unusual case when seen from the utilitarianism perspective. There are many voices on this matter and all of them share same genera of opinion that comes under the domain of relationship but the tone is different. We know utilitarianism ethics is as how many people are getting benefits or happiness from a certain act or thing. In this case there are several voice calming different perspective as for now no majority of a consensus have been seen on whether the world should have an AI grief bot or not. As there are people who share a perspective that the ones who are gone (dead) should be left that way and nothing should be tried to resurrect them in any way possible. On the other hand we hear another set of voices counter arguing that if this is case then what about memories? As memories present in any digital or any other from when used to remember or share happiness then what is wrong with having an AI installed grief bots. As they are also built on the same ground as to share the memories of the loved ones through a bot and the only difference is that here an AI acts like the person created from its memories. On the other hand, world is trying it’s all to transfer one’s consciousness into bots or other human clones and a lot of people see this thing as a benefit and this is no different than making an AI grief bot i.e. one can even live on after being dead (Playford, Roberts and Playford, 2014).
Deontology deals every act very straight forwardly either its right or it is wrong within itself. Being right or wrong is defined on any bases of set rules, rules that are either set by God or man depending upon the nature of the act. The case here is very different as AI grief bots are what? Are they opposed by any rule that they should not exist or they should exit? The answer is no they are not but if you see them by the perspective of a religious person then it might get itself apposed as well as limited according to different religious perspective. As different religions have different perspectives (Burton et al., 2017). So, if we analyse this case on the basis of religious rules we’ll see that almost all the religious voices have same opinion man should not try to play God on the direct matter of AI grief bots mostly when it comes about AI. When the topic of consciousness transfer comes there are very fewer opposing voices heard and this creates a conflicts and doubts in a common man’s mind whether to oppose it or stand with it. This is where deontologist feel pressured to call it a righteous act or a wrong doing. Thus, this case in the light of deontology hangs in doubts but despites of these doubts, uncertainty and lack of clarity in the deontologist opinions one can judge this act on their own within the defined parameters of deontological perspective. As if they think it is wrong then it is wrong or vice versa as deontological ethics is nothing like utilitarianism ethics where there is any case of majority wins and as this grief bot isn’t harming any so it is save to safe to say its permissible for one to have it as it is completely dependent on a person will whether to have it or not (Vrist Ronn, 2016).
Virtue ethics is one of the three major classes of normative ethics. It is also defined as the ethics that focus and emphasizes the virtues or moral values of a person. Relating virtue ethics to the above discussion of the AI grief bots case it’s all about what you think it is according to the moral values you honour. Unlike utilitarianism perspective it isn’t dependent on the maximum number of people getting benefits nor like deontological perspective that either it is hard right or wrong. Rather in case of virtue perspective it is completely dependent on one’s moral values so if one thinks they should purse to resurrect one’s deceased loved one they can and they should. According to virtue perspective even one can help other as well in this quest if their moral values allows it (Dignum, 2018).
Virtue ethics are always dependent on a person’s moral values and this is very problematic in a lot of cases as if an act is not right or declared illegal by the law or rules or morally. One think it is permissible for them then the consequences of that act can be bad for not just a single person it can even effect a complete society. It doesn’t even end here as it is not limited to a single person even a particular society or sect can think that way and then the impact of that act can be catastrophic. If a society takes a negative act as morally right and it won’t stop here that negative act will spread and all the people who’ll think it is morally right will be its part (Vallor, 2016). So, one should think very clearly that whatever situation or act come in front of them they’ll think over it from