I believe the answer is c
A society would have to let everyone live on their own terms, regardless of the conventions of that very society. If a society can't help them, it would at least have to try not to hinder individuals' efforts to discover and maintain their identity. Freedom is courage to claim one's own identity in spite of all the obstacles that have always existed and will always be there. So, an ideal society would be the one that doesn't tend to impose any cultural restrictions upon people; the one that treats all people equally, while admitting that they are mutually diverse.
The answer is D) sounds like "fortunate"
Hi, it will be "narrowing a topic".
Answer:
The potential advantages explored in the text, regarding equipping machines with a sense of morality are that they can be an asset to humans by being able to complete tasks and make wise, split-second life and death decisions; such as, when not to clear buildings with civilians in them during war situations. Paragraph 8 states that Ronald Arkin, a computer science professor and robotics expert at Georgia Tech, has been developing software, referred to as an “ethical governor”, which would make machines capable of deciding when it’s appropriate to fire and when it’s not. Another advantage, as stated in Paragraph 9, is that machines will not be vulnerable to the emotional trauma of combat or to the desire for revenge. It will be free of emotions and emotional ties to other individuals and/or machines.
The potential disadvantages explored in the text, regarding equipping machines with a sense of morality are that they could be a serious threat to human safety; especially since their moral compass will be based on that of a human’s. That, within itself, leaves a lot to be desired. In Paragraph 19, it states that human ethics are a work-in-progress, and we still confront situations for which we don’t have well-developed codes. The text also mentioned in Paragraph 9 that machines could evolve and get rid of us.
Explanation:
