Fiction & Theodicies

[bertatberts]

Just my two pennies worth.

Dougs analogy fits perfectly well. "For the same reason that any manufacturer is held responsible for any damage caused by his product, if the manufacturer knew or should have known that his product was likely to cause that damage." He in no way implies the thing being manufactured is man made, I.E. a machine, anybody who thought that, made a huge assumption.

To manufacture means the making or producing of anything, this includes body cells (cloning), In vitro fertilisation (IVF), Animal husbandry, Dog and Cat breeding, etc... The last three being creatures that can obey or disobey.

It doesn't just mean machinery.

For instant in animal husbandry, if the livestock you've manufactured, break through a fence into a neighbouring farm and ravage a field of cabbages, the livestock isn't held responsible, the breeder is. Even though the livestock has free will.

[David Hayward]

"For the same reason that any manufacturer is held responsible for any damage caused by his product, if the manufacturer knew or should have known that his product was likely to cause that damage."

This is a good paraphrase of the law in England & Wales. Are there not similar laws elsewhere; and similar expectations of accountability. It is not a sufficient argument to say that free will makes the difference, when free will could have been withheld; but wasn't.

By the civil standards by which we hold people accountable and culpable, God too is accountable and culpable.

David

[Chrawnus]

This is a good paraphrase of the law in England & Wales. Are there not similar laws elsewhere; and similar expectations of accountability. It is not a sufficient argument to say that free will makes the difference, when free will could have been withheld; but wasn't.

By the civil standards by which we hold people accountable and culpable, God too is accountable and culpable.

David

Except God has no peers who has either the right, or the ability to hold him accountable.

[lilpixieofterror]

Just my two pennies worth.

Dougs analogy fits perfectly well. "For the same reason that any manufacturer is held responsible for any damage caused by his product, if the manufacturer knew or should have known that his product was likely to cause that damage." He in no way implies the thing being manufactured is man made, I.E. a machine, anybody who thought that, made a huge assumption.

To manufacture means the making or producing of anything, this includes body cells (cloning), In vitro fertilisation (IVF), Animal husbandry, Dog and Cat breeding, etc... The last three being creatures that can obey or disobey.

It doesn't just mean machinery.

For instant in animal husbandry, if the livestock you've manufactured, break through a fence into a neighbouring farm and ravage a field of cabbages, the livestock isn't held responsible, the breeder is. Even though the livestock has free will.

Sorry Bert, already dealt with this one because live stock really doesn't have in terms of it's free will. I don't know of too many sheep or cows that debate morality, do you? The livestock has no capacity to understand property rights, yet again, you don't think what you say though and end up sounding like an idiot.

[Doug Shaver]

Problem is that you are comparing apples to oranges here and trying to argue an analogy that doesn't work.

OK, but it wasn't my analogy. Magellan is the one who compared blaming God to blaming our parents.

Now, if we do create something that has the ability to choose what to do, then we are in a totally different ball game

On the issue at point, not necessarily. No doubt, the laws of product liability will need some major revisions. Even so, if I make a robot that goes out and kills someone, I can't see society letting me off the hook just because I say "I gave it free will," even if society believes I actually made a machine with free will.

[lilpixieofterror]

OK, but it wasn't my analogy. Magellan is the one who compared blaming God to blaming our parents.

In some degree, I do see it that way because perhaps instead of blaming God for everything going on in the world we should instead follow the advice were were given to start with.

On the issue at point, not necessarily. No doubt, the laws of product liability will need some major revisions. Even so, if I make a robot that goes out and kills someone, I can't see society letting me off the hook just because I say "I gave it free will," even if society believes I actually made a machine with free will.

So what is the maker suppose to do to prevent it? Strip the robot of the ability to have free will? Again, that seems to be about the only way to prevent evil going on in the world, but if you have another answer, by all means, show it and explain how it would work.

[bertatberts]

Sorry Bert, already dealt with this one because live stock really doesn't have in terms of it's free will.

So we should disregard your previous post.

Products that we currently make do not have a mind of their own nor have the ability to choose if they want to listen or if they want to disobey.

Animals do.

My computer may sometimes seem like it has a mind of its own, but in truth that is simply errors in software, hardware, and improper use that cause my computer to act up, but it doesn't do it because it wants to do it,

Animals do.

Now, if we do create something that has the ability to choose what to do

What like animals.

then we are in a totally different ball game since the designer could tell or program his machine all he wants, but in the end the machine can do it or not do it.

Yes, just like animals.

This is why your argument falls flat, the machines we produce today don't have the ability to choose, they just simply obey and problems are caused by poor design or improper operation, not because the machine simply chooses to act up.

Unless they are sentient, like I wonder! "Animals."

Get well soon Miss Terror at the moment your hilarious.

[Doug Shaver]

Would it make any difference in regards to the responsibility of the manufacturer if the product had free will?

My response to lilpixieofterror addresses that issue.

Also, does it really make sense to talk about responsibility when we're talking about someone with no equals to whom the person in question have any responsibilites towards?

You tell me. He's your god. If you are suggesting that because of his uniqueness, our ethical concepts are irrelevant to any discussion of his behavior, then I don't see what sense to make of any claims about his moral perfection. Being the almighty creator, he can do whatever he wants and we are in no position to say that it is either good or bad. We may like what he does or not like it, but beyond that we are in no position to judge it.

[lilpixieofterror]

So we should disregard your previous post.

Once an idiot, always an idiot, eh Bert? Well time to correct your ignorance and show the world that you shouldn’t talk about things you clearly do not understand.

Animals do.

Animals do.

What like animals.

Drooling all over the floor like a moron Bert? Not surprised, since you do have the brains of a fruit fly. Let me explain this in terms you understand:

Animals such as sheep, cows, ducks, chickens, etc do not have the ability to understand things like property rights, so they can't be held accountable for damaging property. Those responsible for NOT keeping them locked up are the ones responsible. Is there something about this your little mind can't grasp? It is very simple to understand, barn animals do not have abilities humans do. Do you get it now or do I need to make it even simpler for your little brain to be able to grasp and comprehend?

Yes, just like animals.

Unless they are sentient, like I wonder! "Animals."

You really should brush up on further research before you just run to the dictionary and scream that you know what you're talking about because sentience (by most classic philosophers) would have to deal with somebody or something that has things like: creativity, intelligence, sapience, or self-awareness. Barn Animals do not have much of any of these things, they eat because they are hungry and they have some limited reasoning abilities, but I don't know of too many sheep, cows, or chickens that form governments and debate rather or not they are sentient nor do I know of any government, in the world, that says they are senitent, do you? You really should try to learn before you end up sounding like an idiot. Dictonaries are just a quick reference guide little boy, they are not a tool to understand complex philosophical understandings and ideas.

Get well soon Miss Terror at the moment your hilarious.

Oh, I'm just fine. You seem to have classic dunning syndrome though, too bad. You have a huge ego, you think you are far smarter then you really are, project your flaws upon me, and you don't have a clue just how clueless you really are. I hope you find a cure for your dunning syndrome someday, but for now... I hope you enjoy trying to pretend to be an expert on things you are totally clueless on.

[Doug Shaver]

If you're trying to prove a point about perfection, you're equivocating.

I don't see how - or I didn't mean to equivocate.

Equivocation is usually inadvertent. I intended no impugning of your intentions.

You made a point about imperfect parents - presumably imperfect because they made you.

No, not because they made me. That would imply either (1) that they were, or might have been, perfect before they made me or else (2) that no perfect people could have made me. When I said they were imperfect, all I meant to suggest was that they were ordinary human beings. You do agree that all human beings are imperfect, do you not?

I wanted to point out another way of looking at things. Our gift of being able to do good seems evidence to me of God's perfect plan.

So, you're proposing a free-will theodicy?

[Doug Shaver]

Even so, if I make a robot that goes out and kills someone, I can't see society letting me off the hook just because I say "I gave it free will," even if society believes I actually made a machine with free will.

So what is the maker suppose to do to prevent it?

If it were my robot, and the robot were about to kill you, what would you be wishing I had done?

[seanD]

On the issue at point, not necessarily. No doubt, the laws of product liability will need some major revisions. Even so, if I make a robot that goes out and kills someone, I can't see society letting me off the hook just because I say "I gave it free will," even if society believes I actually made a machine with free will.

If you made a robot with an ability to make moral choices then no, you're not responsible. But your analogy is fallacious and silly because your analogy is not true and could never be true.

[lilpixieofterror]

If it were my robot, and the robot were about to kill you, what would you be wishing I had done?

Emotional pleading, got to love it. You still haven't answered the question, if you give something free will, how are you supposed to prevent it from doing 'bad things' without taking away its free will?

[Doug Shaver]

Emotional pleading, got to love it.

We're talking about ethics. Are you suggesting that our feelings are irrelevant to ethical issues?

You still haven't answered the question, if you give something free will, how are you supposed to prevent it from doing 'bad things' without taking away its free will?

I'll get to that in due course.

[lilpixieofterror]

We're talking about ethics. Are you suggesting that our feelings are irrelevant to ethical issues?

And children have feelings about their parents making them eat their veggies too, does that mean it is immoral to feed children veggies? Of course not, I don't know about you, but in many cases, I find doing the right thing involves doing things I would rather not do to start with. Sometimes being moral is doing what you feel you would rather not do.

I'll get to that in due course.

Do it right now, I have seen many atheist claim this, but they are unable to explain how it would logically work without having to take away free will and/or having a nanny God that watches their every move.