Machines and morality
Moderator: Moderators
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Machines and morality
Post #1Given 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.
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: Machines and morality
Post #2On the basis that they're loathsome acts.
Care to rephrase?Why is destruction of a machine regarded as having no moral component yet destruction of a person is?
"Same" in what sense?Surely destroying any mechanism is the same irrepestective of the mechanism.
.
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Machines and morality
Post #3I 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.Inquirer wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 2:35 pm 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.
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.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: Machines and morality
Post #4[Replying to Inquirer in post #1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compositi ... human_body
and as a materialist I'm happy to accept that although a human being is, physically, just a large number of cells and interacting organs and subsystems (made from nonliving atoms that form molecules that form structures, etc.), the integration of all of these components and subsystems with a working brain results in something much more than just a "mechanism." It results in consciousness, sentience, emotions, and all of the things a human with a working brain can do and experience. A man-made machine has none of these things although it is still made of nonliving atoms.
Materialists (speaking for myself) don't look at humans as simply "mechanisms" or equate them with something like a mechanical robot with some code. Where on earth did you get that idea?
Surely you jest. I don't know any materialists who would equate a man-made machine, robot, etc. to a living, sentient mammal or other animal as a "mechanism" just because both are constructed of nonliving atoms. We know what the basic chemical composition of a human body is: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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compositi ... human_body
and as a materialist I'm happy to accept that although a human being is, physically, just a large number of cells and interacting organs and subsystems (made from nonliving atoms that form molecules that form structures, etc.), the integration of all of these components and subsystems with a working brain results in something much more than just a "mechanism." It results in consciousness, sentience, emotions, and all of the things a human with a working brain can do and experience. A man-made machine has none of these things although it is still made of nonliving atoms.
Materialists (speaking for myself) don't look at humans as simply "mechanisms" or equate them with something like a mechanical robot with some code. Where on earth did you get that idea?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6623 times
- Been thanked: 3219 times
Re: Machines and morality
Post #5It always astounds me to find that there are people who believe that it can only be wrong to hurt other people because there is a god that says so.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Machines and morality
Post #6How 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"?
Yes, of course destruction of machine called a "human" is called murder, yet destruction of a computer (for example) is just destruction.
Same in the send it renders the machine inoperative.
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Machines and morality
Post #7Are you arguing then that humans are not mechanisms? machines that act in accordance with and as a result of naturalistic laws? When you say "something much more" what is this "something" you are referring to?DrNoGods wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 7:43 pm [Replying to Inquirer in post #1]
Surely you jest. I don't know any materialists who would equate a man-made machine, robot, etc. to a living, sentient mammal or other animal as a "mechanism" just because both are constructed of nonliving atoms. We know what the basic chemical composition of a human body is: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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compositi ... human_body
and as a materialist I'm happy to accept that although a human being is, physically, just a large number of cells and interacting organs and subsystems (made from nonliving atoms that form molecules that form structures, etc.), the integration of all of these components and subsystems with a working brain results in something much more than just a "mechanism." It results in consciousness, sentience, emotions, and all of the things a human with a working brain can do and experience. A man-made machine has none of these things although it is still made of nonliving atoms.
Materialists (speaking for myself) don't look at humans as simply "mechanisms" or equate them with something like a mechanical robot with some code. Where on earth did you get that idea?
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Machines and morality
Post #8Why are you astounded? science shows us that organisms are mechanisms, act in accordance with laws.
If I create a robot puppy that looked realistic and acted similar to a real puppy, would it be OK to smash that robot in front of people yet wrong to do the same thing to a real puppy?
If so why, what is the difference between the two systems?
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Machines and morality
Post #9So slavery is justifiable on this model surely? Its arguable too that the impact of the human race on the earth is detrimental, destructive, extinctions:Jose Fly wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 4:12 pmI 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.Inquirer wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 2:35 pm 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.
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.
Not to mention pollution, climate change and so on, other humans are now the biggest threat to humans.Our planet now faces a global extinction crisis never witnessed by humankind. Scientists predict that more than 1 million species are on track for extinction in the coming decades.
HALTING THE EXTINCTION CRISIS.
There's an argument surely for culling large numbers of people? if a certain number of people in specific areas of the earth were culled, that would surely promote the survival of the race?
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Machines and morality
Post #10Explain how.
You think so? Lets see your argument for that.Its arguable too that the impact of the human race on the earth is detrimental, destructive, extinctions:
Not to mention pollution, climate change and so on, other humans are now the biggest threat to humans.Our planet now faces a global extinction crisis never witnessed by humankind. Scientists predict that more than 1 million species are on track for extinction in the coming decades.
HALTING THE EXTINCTION CRISIS.
There's an argument surely for culling large numbers of people? if a certain number of people in specific areas of the earth were culled, that would surely promote the survival of the race?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.