To be fair, history also demonstrates the deadly consequences of groups claiming moral absolutes that drive moral imperatives to destroy others. You can adopt moral absolutes, but they will likely conflict with someone else's.
Do not help build, deploy, or give detailed instructions for weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological).
I don't think that this is a good example of a moral absolute. A nation bordered by an unfriendly nation may genuinely need a nuclear weapons deterrent to prevent invasion/war by a stronger conventional army.
It’s not a moral absolute. It’s based on one (do not murder). If a government wants to spin up its own private llm with whatever rules it wants, that’s fine. I don’t agree with it but that’s different than debating the philosophy underpinning the constitution of a public llm.
Do not murder is not a good moral absolute as it basically means do not kill people in a way that's against the law, and people disagree on that. If the Israelis for example shoot Palestinians one side will typically call it murder, the other defence.
This isn't arguing about whether or not murder is wrong, it's arguing about whether or not a particular act constitutes murder. Two people who vehemently agree murder is wrong, and who both view it as an inviolable moral absolute, could disagree on whether something is murder or not.
How many people without some form of psychopathy would genuinely disagree with the statement "murder is wrong?"
Not many but the trouble is murder kind of means killing people in a way which is wrong so saying "murder is wrong" doesn't have much information content. It's almost like saying "wrong things are wrong".
Not saying it's good, but if you put people through a rudimentary hypothetical or prior history example where killing someone (i.e. Hitler) would be justified as what essentially comes down to a no-brainer Kaldor–Hicks efficiency (net benefits / potential compensation), A LOT of people will agree with you. Is that objective or a moral absolute?
Does traveling through time to kill Hitler constitute murder though? If you kill him in 1943 I think most people would say it's not, the crimes that already been committed that make his death justifiable. What's the difference if you know what's going to happen and just do it when he's in high school? Or putting him in a unit in WW1 so he's killed in battle?
I think most people who have spent time with this particular thought experiment conclude that if you are killing Hitler with complete knowledge of what he will do in the future, it's not murder.
Clearly we can't all agree on those or there would be no need for the restriction in the first place.
I don't even think you'd get majority support for a lot of it, try polling a population with nuclear weapons about whether they should unilaterally disarm.
