Machines and morality

[Inquirer]

Given that humans are believed to be mechanisms (albeit of great complexity) on what basis can we say that murder or torture is wrong? Why is destruction of a machine regarded as having no moral component yet destruction of a person is? Surely destroying any mechanism is the same irrepestective of the mechanism.

[Jose Fly]

No of course not. I'm referring to evolutionary anthropology.

Um.....okay?

In other words, let me ask, do you think culling is not the best method, if so why?

If you're not advocating for culling people, what exactly is your point?

And are you ever going to address the actual argument I made in response to your OP, or is this just going to be all red herrings?

One does not need to advocate something in order to consider its merits or shortcomings Jose. Can one discuss rape or murder yet not advocate either of them? Yes, of course one can!

I understand that you don't want to explain what you meant by "best" so we'll have to leave it at that I suppose.

So you can't explain your point, nor can you address the arguments I put forth in my reply to the OP. All you can do is throw out red herrings about slavery and culling people. Okay then.

This is a fairly typical reaction among the Christians I've interacted with when, after they make some sort of argument about materialism not providing any basis for morality, I demonstrate that it actually does. Rather than admit the error or even address what I said, I guess it's preferable to dodge.

[Inquirer]

I'm replying to this again as you seem to be accusing me of "not addressing your arguments".

Given that humans are believed to be mechanisms (albeit of great complexity) on what basis can we say that murder or torture is wrong? Why is destruction of a machine regarded as having no moral component yet destruction of a person is? Surely destroying any mechanism is the same irrepestective of the mechanism.

I see this as a variation on the "materialism offers no basis for morality" talking point that, IMO, has been done to death in forums like this. So I'll give the answer I typically give.

Homo sapiens are a decidedly social species that has evolved rather complex social behaviors. One of the more important factors in our long-term survival as a species is our ability to form cooperative groups, which increases the likelihood of the groups' persistence. As a way to illustrate this, think of a scenario where two groups of humans are placed on separate isolated islands. After they arrive on the island, the first group starts killing, raping, stealing from, and otherwise harming each other, whereas the second group forms a cooperative and mutually supportive society. It's reasonable to conclude that the second group is far more likely to persist than the first.

So tying this back to the morality question is pretty easy. Human societies that are more cooperative are more functional, successful, and more likely to persist than ones where members harm and kill each other. Thus it's to our benefit (both individual and collective) to form cooperative and functional societies.

As I already mentioned (perhaps you missed it) slavery made the Romans and Egyptians successful, genocide against native Americans help make the United States more successful, slavery in the US made certain factions in the US and British Empire successful, shall I go on?

If your arguing that whatever increases "success" or "longevity" is by definition morally good then please just say so, is that your position here?

[Jose Fly]

As I already mentioned (perhaps you missed it) slavery made the Romans and Egyptians successful, genocide against native Americans help make the United States more successful, slavery in the US made certain factions in the US and British Empire successful, shall I go on?

Oh, so you are actually arguing that slavery and genocide are beneficial to societies and the persistence of H. sapiens. Please explain how that is so.

If your arguing that whatever increases "success" or "longevity" is by definition morally good then please just say so, is that your position here?

It's much more nuanced than that simplistic depiction. But I'm really curious to see your "slavery and genocide are good for society" argument.

[Miles]

Given that humans are believed to be mechanisms (albeit of great complexity) on what basis can we say that murder or torture is wrong?

On the basis that they're loathsome acts.

How do we differentiate between loathsome and not loathsome? I can differentiate between alive and dead, or hot and cold, but tell me more about "loathsome"?

loath·some
/ˈlōTHsəm,ˈlōT͟Hsəm/
adjective: loathsome
causing hatred or disgust; repulsive.

NOT loath·some
Not causing hatred or disgust; not repulsive.

Why is destruction of a machine regarded as having no moral component yet destruction of a person is?

Care to rephrase?

Yes, of course destruction of machine called a "human" is called murder, yet destruction of a computer (for example) is just destruction.

Actually the destruction (death) of a human need not be murder at all. Killings in combat are not considered to be murder. Mercy killings are not considered to be murder. State executions in prisons are not considered to be murder. Reasonable killings in defense of oneself or another are typically not considered to be murder. Accidental deaths caused by another are not considered to be murder.

Surely destroying any mechanism is the same irrespective of the mechanism.

"Same" in what sense?

.

Same in the send it renders the machine inoperative.

Not if one attaches a moral value to the "machine," which we do to humans.


.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #16]

Yes, I agree there are varying types of mechanisms, humans, ants, clocks, radios, chess computers and so on.

Humans and ants are organisms, clocks, radios and "chess computers" are mechanisms. I wouldn't classify an organism as a type of mechanism, but a far more complicated system of mechanisms all working in synergy to create something greater in function and capability than the simple sum of its mechanical (atomic, molecular) parts.

But do you think that humans involve anything other than the same naturalistic laws that govern the behavior of other kinds of mechanism?

I don't think the chemistry and physics of a human body involve anything more than the same interactions and laws that govern any physical structures (living or not). A human body can be broken down into its atomic and molecular constituents and we know that the carbon and oxygen atoms in a human are idential to those in a plant or an oil well. It is the assembly of them into living things that differentiates a mechanism from a far more complicated organism. Life can exist when the interactions of all of the necessary subsystems and organs (in the case of humans) is such that the properties of life are realized, but those subsystems and organs themselves are all just assemblies of nonliving atoms combined in certain ways.

If certain subsystems or organs fail then the living thing ceases to be alive and is dead, made of exactly the same atoms as when it was living. A person who suddenly dies of a heart attack doesn't lose some sort of spirit or soul or "breath of life" as far as we know ... they've just lost the blood pump that supplies oxygen to the body and brain, and that lack of oxygen results in death.

You seem to be suggesting that materialists think humans are nothing but "molecules in motion" as I think Frank Turek always says, and therefore are nothing but mechanisms no different from a computer or robot. Where that comes from I have no idea ... other than it being in the same misrepresentation category as tornadoes through junkyards making 747s, or the infinite monkey theorem.

[Inquirer]

As I already mentioned (perhaps you missed it) slavery made the Romans and Egyptians successful, genocide against native Americans help make the United States more successful, slavery in the US made certain factions in the US and British Empire successful, shall I go on?

Oh, so you are actually arguing that slavery and genocide are beneficial to societies and the persistence of H. sapiens. Please explain how that is so.

If your arguing that whatever increases "success" or "longevity" is by definition morally good then please just say so, is that your position here?

It's much more nuanced than that simplistic depiction. But I'm really curious to see your "slavery and genocide are good for society" argument.

You were asked earlier to define "best" but chose not to, so now I ask (with some hope!) for you to define this term "good for society".

[Jose Fly]

You were asked earlier to define "best" but chose not to, so now I ask (with some hope!) for you to define this term "good for society".

That's already been explained in my first reply in this thread.

Human societies that are more cooperative are more functional, successful, and more likely to persist than ones where members harm and kill each other. Thus it's to our benefit (both individual and collective) to form cooperative and functional societies.

So explain how slavery and genocide help to make a society more functional, successful, and more likely to persist.

[Inquirer]

You were asked earlier to define "best" but chose not to, so now I ask (with some hope!) for you to define this term "good for society".

That's already been explained in my first reply in this thread.

Human societies that are more cooperative are more functional, successful, and more likely to persist than ones where members harm and kill each other. Thus it's to our benefit (both individual and collective) to form cooperative and functional societies.

This is futile I think. Terms like "functional" and "successful" are undefined so far as I can see, far too vague to carry any weight in an argument.

Was Roman society "successful" do you think?

So explain how slavery and genocide help to make a society more functional, successful, and more likely to persist.

Well we can do that IF we define "functional" and "successful" appropriately and that's the whole problem I see with your position, you want to use terms to quantify a better society than some other and then define (not that you have explicitly) those terms to mean the very thing you see as "better" in a society.

The US South was successful if we look at its economic metrics:

Slavery was so profitable, it sprouted more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi River valley than anywhere in the nation.

From the History Channel.

and

Few works of history have exerted as powerful an influence as a book published in 1944 called Capitalism and Slavery. Its author, Eric Williams, later the prime minister of Trinidad and Tabago, charged that black slavery was the engine that propelled Europe's rise to global economic dominance. He maintained that Europeans' conquest and settlement of the New World depended on the enslavement of millions of black slaves, who helped amass the capital that financed the industrial revolution. Europe's economic progress, he insisted, came at the expense of black slaves whose labor built the foundations of modern capitalism.

and

One crop, slave-grown cotton, provided over half of all US export earnings. By 1840, the South grew 60 percent of the world's cotton and provided some 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Thus slavery paid for a substantial share of the capital, iron, and manufactured goods that laid the basis for American economic growth. In addition, precisely because the South specialized in cotton production, the North developed a variety of businesses that provided services for the slave South, including textile factories, a meat processing industry, insurance companies, shippers, and cotton brokers.

Would you describe this as unsuccessful? This is a quantitative measure too, not some subjective ill defined vagueness.

[Jose Fly]

You were asked earlier to define "best" but chose not to, so now I ask (with some hope!) for you to define this term "good for society".

That's already been explained in my first reply in this thread.

Human societies that are more cooperative are more functional, successful, and more likely to persist than ones where members harm and kill each other. Thus it's to our benefit (both individual and collective) to form cooperative and functional societies.

This is futile I think. Terms like "functional" and "successful" are undefined so far as I can see, far too vague to carry any weight in an argument.

Was Roman society "successful" do you think?

So explain how slavery and genocide help to make a society more functional, successful, and more likely to persist.

Well we can do that IF we define "functional" and "successful" appropriately and that's the whole problem I see with your position, you want to use terms to quantify a better society than some other and then define (not that you have explicitly) those terms to mean the very thing you see as "better" in a society.

So your response to my post is to try and bog things down by arguing about definitions.

The US South was successful if we look at its economic metrics:

And you believe "profitable" = "successful". Okay then.

Let me ask...do you believe the people who were slaves were members of US Southern society?

[Inquirer]

You were asked earlier to define "best" but chose not to, so now I ask (with some hope!) for you to define this term "good for society".

That's already been explained in my first reply in this thread.

Human societies that are more cooperative are more functional, successful, and more likely to persist than ones where members harm and kill each other. Thus it's to our benefit (both individual and collective) to form cooperative and functional societies.

This is futile I think. Terms like "functional" and "successful" are undefined so far as I can see, far too vague to carry any weight in an argument.

Was Roman society "successful" do you think?

So explain how slavery and genocide help to make a society more functional, successful, and more likely to persist.

Well we can do that IF we define "functional" and "successful" appropriately and that's the whole problem I see with your position, you want to use terms to quantify a better society than some other and then define (not that you have explicitly) those terms to mean the very thing you see as "better" in a society.

So your response to my post is to try and bog things down by arguing about definitions.

The US South was successful if we look at its economic metrics:

And you believe "profitable" = "successful". Okay then.

Let me ask...do you believe the people who were slaves were members of US Southern society?

Again you are using terms that you refuse to define, the latest being "members".

Jose, I answered your question, it is very simple really, society X is better than society Y if we define our terms appropriately.

Economic metrics are used to quantify the success of a nation, there are other ways too, pick whichever you like to support your argument ! Crime, health, divorce rate, economic growth, the price of gas, the price of houses...