Philip K Dick discussion
This topic is about
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Empathy Test
date
newest »
newest »
The concern for animals was due to their rarity following some kind of (probably nuclear) disaster. I don't think the people of this world cared so much for animals in and of themselves, but rather for the status that ownership of an animal could bring.People with emotion affective disorders would probably fail the Voight-Kampf. One of the consequences of such disorders is, sometimes, the inability to realise the effect ones actions might have on another person, so in such cases genuine choice is not possible - one of the reasons people so affected are not held to have criminal responsibility. (Reading this back, I sound rather authoritative and certain, but it's simply my tentative opinion :-)
)
Many of PKD's stories revolve around empathy and the definition of personhood. "Human Is" is one of my favourites in this vein.
Nice topic for discussion, by the way :-D
I've added Human Is?: A Philip K. Dick Reader to my to-read list! I've never heard of emotion affective disorders. I'll check it out.[A few minutes later... Okay, I googled emotion affective disorders, but I didn't find what you were describing. I actually didn't find "emotion affective disorders" at all. Just "affective disorders" - depression, bipolar + anxiety.
The phrase did remind me of something though. Sometimes people experience the complete inability to access there emotions for a period of time. During that time, they would certainly fail an empathy test - just like they would fail any test that measures emotions.]
I read this book at a really interesting time, because I just found out I have Aspergers. I guess I really related to the androids - not that I see the world like them at all, but that other people might see me that way. I'm different. I don't respond to things the way they expect. In Rick Deckard's reality, I fear I might be labeled an android. However, on the inside, it is completely different. My empathy is actually much stronger than normal. I get really upset when other people are in pain - it actually gets in the way of being there for them.
However, I also see empathy as something that is beyond our control. My over-empathy is no more a choice than someone else's under-empathy, and it is nothing to be punished for. For me, it would not be enough to put an android down (Their previous murder, however, is another story).
Affective disorders relate to the emotions, per se :-), though I'm not qualified to diagnose such or, in fact, all that sure I believe in them as a "thing" rather than as a label that's useful for pharmaceutical companies to shift product.Anyhow, if memory serves, PKD, does have Deckard consider whether his own readiness to retire the androids is due to a deficit in his own empathic response and, therefore, to question whether he has any moral advantage over them.
I'm (hopefully!) about to qualify as a counsellor, so I'm interested in the faculty of empathy and how we experience it in ourselves and in others. I find your comments about over-empathy really interesting, Etta. Something for me to reflect upon. :-)
Whilst I agree that, like all human characteristics, people are born with a differing degrees of the potential for empathy, its actualisation is moderated by their life experience. I don't think we get stuck in one place, though, and that it is possible for change to happen. My experience has been of developing my empathy through exercise of it, though it feels like I'm only a few steps into a rather long journey!
Maybe that's a difference between PKD's humans and his androids: that the human has the potential for personal change, whereas the android is fixed into the responses that were built into it at inception?
I guess my biggest concern was the concept that lack of empathy was a reason to kill the androids. What if we decided lack of empathy was a reason to kill humans? A friend of mine has a cousin who is has been diagnosed as sociopath. I don't know so much about the situation personally, but my understanding is that he does not feel empathy. He is nice to people because he wants them to be nice to him, or because he wants something from them. He is still a good person because he has an intellectual belief in morality - not an emotional one. My point is that we all choose to be good or bad - it is just different things that influence that choice in different people.Are androids capable of making that choice? Obviously, that depends on how each story defines them (I am not aware of any actual androids among us). These androids appeared to be attempting to live as humans. Some might have been up to nefarious schemes, but one just wanted to be an opera singer. We don't really have all the details of her life, but there was no indication she was hurting people. Of course, there is always the question, "What if she were threatened?". How far would she go to protect herself? What threats would warrant such protection? But then, there is that question for every human being as well. Some have lines they won't cross, others don't. (Then you have to take into account that these story-people seem to be better than us real people. Mercerism seems to have taken them to a place where they weren't willing to hurt people at all. Thus, creating a much more defined line between android and human.)
Then there is the aspect of the android's escape. They allude to the fact that the androids killed people to escape Mars, but we don't really know the circumstances. Were the androids slaves there? Is it acceptable to kill to escape slavery?
Really, it is a very short book, with a whole lot left to the imagination, so we'll never have answers to the "humanity" of these androids, but it sure does raise a lot of interesting questions.
This gets to the whole AI question I love so much. If it looks and acts like a person... is it a 'person' no matter what? How can you justify using an android for slave labor, which is essentially what it was designed for, if it actually is human in every way... even lacking empathy, which we've already all pretty much agreed some people would fail that test. Also, no matter how widespread Mercerism was supposed to be, in a post-war nuclear scenario I'd assume at least a part of the population would have reverted to a tribal type, kill or be killed state. It's just a natural state for a group of people with very limited resources - to fight in order to survive. I think an interesting aspect, not explored by PKD, would be - would this future society even care? Maybe the empathy test was explicitly designed against people as well as androids?
(view spoiler)[Here's what I've been thinking. First of all, PKD set this book in some future reality where EVERYONE cares about ALL LIFE. In the real world, we cook animals alive (lobster) and eat them. We would all test out as androids - with the exception of some vegans (I say some, because it is not enough to not hurt animals, you must be horrified by the idea that others do). So, I wonder about the premise that we could really change so much culturally to get to the point where the empathy test would be effective. Not only would there have to be an incredible cultural shift, but it would have to happen homogeneously - across the world. Of course, from this book alone it is not clear exactly what changes the world has undergone. The clearest explanation for any of this is Mercerism. I suppose it is conceivable that a technological device could condition all humanity to respond the same to certain hypothetical questions. I guess the part that seems odd to me is that Rick Deckard is so sure that this response is natural - when it is clear from our present-day perspective that it would have to be taught. I don't think that is necessarily a flaw in the writing. I think it is pretty common for people to incorrectly attribute phenomenon to nature that belong to nurture, or vice versa.
Secondly, Rick Deckard muses about a possible schizoid who might fail the test. What type of disorder do you think he is referring to? What type of person do you think would fail an empathy test that most people would pass (obviously, it would have to be constructed differently for present-day than the one he administers.) Does that make those people less human?
I think a sociopath might fail an empathy test, but I would argue they are still human. I would argue that just because it is easier for them to hurt people is not enough to punish them. They still have a choice whether or not they decide to actually hurt people.
Do you agree? Do you think the same should hold true for PKD's androids? (Setting aside that they hurt people in their escape. What if they hadn't?) Rick Deckard seems to play down their escape and instead focus on their potential for future harm. If that was all he had to go on, would it be enough? (hide spoiler)]
I look forward to your responses!