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.

[Inquirer]

So slavery is justifiable on this model surely?

Explain how.

Why do you think societies adopted slavery? If it didn't offer some advantages why would nature have ever developed the practice? Slavery evolved didn't it?

Its arguable too that the impact of the human race on the earth is detrimental, destructive, extinctions:

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.

Not to mention pollution, climate change and so on, other humans are now the biggest threat to humans.

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?

You think so? Lets see your argument for that.

Sure, not culling on a mass scale is pretty much guaranteed to lead to destruction of the human race.

Overpopulation is a serious worry:

David Attenborough: The planet can’t cope with overpopulation



We already cull deer and other animals routinely, why not humans?

[Jose Fly]

Why do you think societies adopted slavery? If it didn't offer some advantages why would nature have ever developed the practice?

You're the one suggesting that slavery is beneficial, so explain how that is so.

Sure, not culling on a mass scale is pretty much guaranteed to lead to destruction of the human race.

Overpopulation is a serious worry:

David Attenborough: The planet can’t cope with overpopulation



We already cull deer and other animals routinely, why not humans?

Why do you see culling as the best means to accomplish lower population numbers? How do you propose it be implemented?

[Inquirer]

Why do you think societies adopted slavery? If it didn't offer some advantages why would nature have ever developed the practice?

You're the one suggesting that slavery is beneficial, so explain how that is so.

On the basis that it evolved, why else would the practice have evolved?

Sure, not culling on a mass scale is pretty much guaranteed to lead to destruction of the human race.

Overpopulation is a serious worry:

David Attenborough: The planet can’t cope with overpopulation



We already cull deer and other animals routinely, why not humans?

Why do you see culling as the best means to accomplish lower population numbers? How do you propose it be implemented?

I never argued it was "best" Jose, so please define what "best" means and I'll take a stab at answering that.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #7]

Are 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?

Here's the Dictionary.com definition for the word mechanism:

noun
1 an assembly of moving parts performing a complete functional motion, often being part of a large machine; linkage.
2 the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished.
3 machinery or mechanical appliances in general.
4 the structure or arrangement of parts of a machine or similar device, or of anything analogous.
5 the mechanical part of something; any mechanical device: the mechanism of a clock.
6 routine methods or procedures; mechanics: the mechanism of government.

And here is their definition for the word organism:

noun
1 a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.
2 a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran.
3 any organized body or system conceived of as analogous to a living being: the governmental organism.
4 any complex thing or system having properties and functions determined not only by the properties and relations of its individual parts, but by the character of the whole that they compose and by the relations of the parts to the whole.

Based on these definitions, I'd refer to a robot or any purely mechanical item with or without software control as a mechanism, and a living thing as an organism. Note particularly #4 in the organism definition. This is what I'm referring to as "something much more." Purely mechanical things can have characteristics that are more than the sum of their parts (eg. a car can't transport something from A to B unless all of the components work together as a system). The human brain has a "character of the whole" that is far beyond just the atoms, molecules and electrical and chemical signals that make it function, but there is no doubt that it is constructed of nonliving, physical things interacting in very complex ways to produce thoughts, feelings, memory, emotions and all of the things associated with the "whole."

Plants are also far more complex that any machines humans have created, but we generally don't call cutting down a tree murder because the tree is not sentient and has no knowledge of its existence. Killing a roach is also not considered murder, even though the roach does have some level of awareness of its existence. We consider them pests and most people are happy to have them exterminated rather than live alongside them. Killing a real puppy rather than a robot puppy is also not the same thing as the real puppy is an organism with an even higher degree of consciousness and awareness than a roach, while the robot puppy has no consciousness or awareness of its existence. Living organisms and mechanical mechanisms are not analogous, and I don't know of any materialists who argue that they are.

[Jose Fly]

On the basis that it evolved, why else would the practice have evolved?

You're asserting that the practice of slavery is a heritable trait?

I never argued it was "best" Jose, so please define what "best" means and I'll take a stab at answering that.

I never brought up culling, you did. If you're not advocating for it, then this has been rather pointless.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #7]

Are 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?

Here's the Dictionary.com definition for the word mechanism:

noun
1 an assembly of moving parts performing a complete functional motion, often being part of a large machine; linkage.
2 the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished.
3 machinery or mechanical appliances in general.
4 the structure or arrangement of parts of a machine or similar device, or of anything analogous.
5 the mechanical part of something; any mechanical device: the mechanism of a clock.
6 routine methods or procedures; mechanics: the mechanism of government.

And here is their definition for the word organism:

noun
1 a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.
2 a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran.
3 any organized body or system conceived of as analogous to a living being: the governmental organism.
4 any complex thing or system having properties and functions determined not only by the properties and relations of its individual parts, but by the character of the whole that they compose and by the relations of the parts to the whole.

Based on these definitions, I'd refer to a robot or any purely mechanical item with or without software control as a mechanism, and a living thing as an organism. Note particularly #4 in the organism definition. This is what I'm referring to as "something much more." Purely mechanical things can have characteristics that are more than the sum of their parts (eg. a car can't transport something from A to B unless all of the components work together as a system). The human brain has a "character of the whole" that is far beyond just the atoms, molecules and electrical and chemical signals that make it function, but there is no doubt that it is constructed of nonliving, physical things interacting in very complex ways to produce thoughts, feelings, memory, emotions and all of the things associated with the "whole."

Plants are also far more complex that any machines humans have created, but we generally don't call cutting down a tree murder because the tree is not sentient and has no knowledge of its existence. Killing a roach is also not considered murder, even though the roach does have some level of awareness of its existence. We consider them pests and most people are happy to have them exterminated rather than live alongside them. Killing a real puppy rather than a robot puppy is also not the same thing as the real puppy is an organism with an even higher degree of consciousness and awareness than a roach, while the robot puppy has no consciousness or awareness of its existence. Living organisms and mechanical mechanisms are not analogous, and I don't know of any materialists who argue that they are.

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

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

[Inquirer]

On the basis that it evolved, why else would the practice have evolved?

You're asserting that the practice of slavery is a heritable trait?

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

I never argued it was "best" Jose, so please define what "best" means and I'll take a stab at answering that.

I never brought up culling, you did. If you're not advocating for it, then this has been rather pointless.

Yes I did mention "culling" I do not deny that, but I did not mention "best" and so I'm asking you to explain what you mean by "best", do you know what you meant by the term "best"?

This is what you said Jose:

Why do you see culling as the best means to accomplish lower population numbers?

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

[Jose Fly]

It 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.

In all my years being around evangelical Christians, I've consistently noticed how it's a good thing that many of them are Christians. Because otherwise, based on what they say they'd do if they weren't Christian or how they were before they converted, they are apparently horrible people.

[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?

[Inquirer]

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.