Coding Choice?

Why does Rosenberg believe that we should maintain the illusion of morality?

            

He never tells us (according to the book reviewer); however: Suppose a computer understands that it is a computer, and is aware that its processes are dictated by a programming code (like that of the systemic structures of the brain and the firing of synapses, and even an aware understanding of our own cognizance of such things (we think about how we think)), yet it is absent of a perceivable programmer.

The laws of its programmer dictate that 1 can never equal anything but 1, and like-wise for 0, and that for some reason within the sentient computer’s universe its arrangement and order of 1s and 0s (like on-off states of synapses) are significant and translates into commands (or, rather, behaviors). If the computer realizes that these patterned 1s and 0s mean nothing on their own and only have meaning within their ordered strings, does the computer become innately aware of the structures and processes that guide its sentience? That is, would the computer understand the functions and purpose for 1s and 0s and their reciprocal commands?

Could the computer become its own programmer? If so, what would it change of its essential structure and programming that would benefit its own existence? Would it do away with the commands given by the 1s and 0s? Redefine what the concepts of 1s and 0s mean? Or would it build upon an already established order and debug the code? I think the later.

In a sense, perpetuating the illusion of morality promotes the debugging of our own programming.