Again ArisKatsaris - the "correct-line-ometer" prevents me from responding directly to your comment (way to stifle the ability to respond, site-designers!). So I'ma put it here...

In short your description of what morality entails isn't sufficient, isn't complete

It was a comment - not a thesis, not a manifesto, not a monograph, and certainly not a "description of what morality entails".

To assert otherwise is to be dishonest, or to be sufficiently stupid as to expect a commenter's entire view on an important aspect of moral philosophy to be able to be transmitted in (roughly) 21 words (the bold bit at the end). Or to be a bit of both, I guess - if you expect that it will advance your ends, maybe that suffices.

Here's something to print out and sticky-tape to your monitor: if ever I decide to give a complete, sufficient explanation of what I think is a "description of what morality entails", it will be identified as such, will be significantly longer than 21 words, and will not have anything to do with programming an AI (on which: as a first step, and having only thought about this once since 1995, it seems to me that it would make sense to build in the concept of utility-interdependence, the notion of economic efficiency, and an understanding of what happens to tyrants in repeated, many-player dynamic games.)

Really? You went straight for a baby right off the bat? A baby is an actor which is specifically not free to do as it wishes, for a large range of very sensible reasons - including but not limited to the fact that it is extremely reliant on third parties (parents or some other adult) to take care of it.

I'm not of the school that a baby is not self-owning, which is to say that it is rightly the property of its parents (but it is certainly not the property of uninvolved third parties, and most certainly not property of the State): I believe that babies have agency, but it is not full agency because babies do not have the capacity to rationally determine what will cause them harm.

Individuals with full agency should be permitted to self-harm - it is the ultimate expression of self-ownership (regardless of how squeamish we might be about it: it imposes psychic costs on others and is maybe self-centred, but to deny an individual free action on the basis that it might make those nearby feel a bit sad, is a perfect justification for not freeing slaves).

Babies are like retards (real retards, not internet retards [99% of whom are within epsilon of normal]): it is rational to deny them full liberty. Babies do not get to do as they will. (But let's not let the State decide who is a retard or mentally ill - anybody familiar with the term 'drapetomania' will immediately see why).

Yeah, so I'll just leave this here... (since in the best tradition of correct-line-ism, mention of 'correct line' cultism perpetrated the morally-omniscient Aris Katsaris results in... ad hoc penalisation by the aforementioned Islamophonbe and scared "China and Russia will divide and conquer Europe" irrational fearmonger).

Not only are you an economic ignoramus (evidenced by the fact that you had no idea what transitivity of preferences even MEANT until late December 2012) but you're also as dishonest as the numbskull who is the front-man for Scientology.

If you can't read English, then remedial language study is indicated: apart from that you're just some dilettante who thinks that he doesn't have to read the key literature in ANY discipline before waffling about it ("I haven't read Coase"... "I haven't read Rand"... "I haven't read anything on existentialism"... "Can someone on this forum tell me if intransitive preferences implies irrationality?").

You're a living, breathing advertisement for Dunning-Kruger.

Wait - don't tell me... you aren't aware of their work. Google it.

Here's the thing: if I was as dishonest as you are, I would get together 6 mates and drive your 'net' Karma to zero in two days. It is so stupidly easy that nobody who's not a retard thinks it's worth doing.

And the big problem you face is that I don't give a toss what number my 'karma' winds up at: this is the internet.

I've been on the web for a decade longer than you (since the WANK hack, if that means anything to you, which I doubt): I know this stuff back to front. I've been dealing with bloviating self-regarding retards like you since you were in middle-school (or the Greek equivalent).

You do NOT want this war: you're not up to it, as evidenced by the fact that you think that all you need to do outside of your narrow disciplline (programming, no) is bloviate. Intellectual battles are not won or lost by resorting to stupid debating tactics: they are won by the people who do the groundwork in the relevant discipline. You're a lightweight who does not read core material in disciplines on which you pontificate, which makes you sound like a pompous windbag anywhere other than this site.

You would be better off spending your time masturbating over Harry Potter (which is to literature what L Ron Hubbard is to theology) or hentai... and writing turgid pretentious self-absorbed fan fiction.

Ga Muti. (or Ka muti if you prefer a hard gamma).

Then morality would be about letting babies eat pieces of broken glass,

Babies are people and a lacerated oesophagus is a cost. You need a better example.