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]

(By the way, you may have changed your identity but that does not mean you have erased your previous history in these discussions. I will address your posts keeping that in mind)

My posts and arguments are legendary, why on earth would I ever want to erase them!

Why hide behind a new ID? That often happens when someone has 'soiled their nest' but hope that others will not make the connection when they return in a shiny new suit.

What does this digression have to do with the subject we were discussing?

[brunumb]

(By the way, you may have changed your identity but that does not mean you have erased your previous history in these discussions. I will address your posts keeping that in mind)

My posts and arguments are legendary, why on earth would I ever want to erase them!

Why hide behind a new ID? That often happens when someone has 'soiled their nest' but hope that others will not make the connection when they return in a shiny new suit.

What does this digression have to do with the subject we were discussing?

You ignored the significant part of my post to do that. See post #50.

[Inquirer]

It isn't accurate. First people behave as they've been taught to behave and secondly not all people regard murder or torture as wrong, it is a matter of opinion and nothing else. In war murder is no longer wrong, bombing children is no longer wrong.

Is it that people do not regard those things as wrong or that they merely disregard them to further their own agenda? You may believe that in war murder is no longer wrong or bombing children is no longer wrong, but my understanding of what is morally correct tells me otherwise. People have been taught to behave according to society's current understanding of what is morally correct. That includes not murdering or torturing others. What more is necessary?

You ignored the significant part of my post to do that. See post #50.

Very well, let me respond then:

There can be no "agenda", systems obey the laws of physics, what a material system does, any material system does, is dictated by the laws of nature - of course you can claim that is not true or not always true but then you must abandon the scientific method as I've explained in more detail in this post.

You want to embrace science (which is to embrace causality) yet at the same time conveniently abandon causality in order to define right and wrong as being a free choice! How can you possibly scientifically disagree with what I'm saying?

If everything is due to causality then a murderer or rapist or torturer is not "responsible" for their actions, it is the laws of nature that are responsible, a person cannot disobey the laws of nature any more than a molecule within them can disobey the laws of nature.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

THEY'RE HUMANS!

HUMANS!

THEY'RE HUMANS GOLDANGIT!

That you even ask this question has me fretful for them around you.

[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.

THEY'RE HUMANS!

HUMANS!

THEY'RE HUMANS GOLDANGIT!

That you even ask this question has me fretful for them around you.

I see, so this is just a variation of the "it is that way because it is that way" argument. As for "fretful" I prefer to discuss science like a scientist, avoiding emotional opinions.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

THEY'RE HUMANS!

HUMANS!

THEY'RE HUMANS GOLDANGIT!

That you even ask this question has me fretful for them around you.

I see, so this is just a variation of the "it is that way because it is that way" argument. As for "fretful" I prefer to discuss science like a scientist, avoiding emotional opinions.

Ugly enough, psycho/sociopaths're often recognized by the devoidance of emotion. And don't it rip up the mater patch, morality is an emotion driven deal there.

In my experience, as an antisocial creature in a social society, I, if others don't, find it readily apparent that if the metaphorical you harm the real one of mine, all Hell'll break lose, and dang society in the process.

But, as Jose Fly's told it so well, y'all bunch, members of society, 'd do well not to just run around running around amok.

Or, we have the alternative... "It's that way cause a God I can't show exists has him thoughts on it I can't show he does, and, well, don't that beat all, but that's just it the way, that it is, the way."

So you wimmins're whore's, and a good bunch of the rest of ya man kissing homos!

[Clownboat]

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.

For the love of all that is holy and for the sake of society and humans in general... please pick a religion to provide you with morality. Note that not all humans struggle with morality though. For those humans that do struggle, we have religions to choose from, so please pick one.

Please also try to learn the meaning of the words you use as that will greatly help in debate.
For example, humans are not mechanisms just because you don't understand and/or fail to look up the meaning of the word.

mech-an-ism
noun
1.
a system of parts working together in a machine; a piece of machinery.

2.
a natural or established process by which something takes place or is brought about.

I'm left to wonder what your native language is as your post failed within the first 8 words. Then you ponder the difference between a machine and a human as though it actually confuses you.

To assist with the confusion over the meaning of these English words:

ma-chine
noun
an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.

hu-man
adjective
relating to or characteristic of people or human beings.
a human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.

[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.

For the love of all that is holy and for the sake of society and humans in general... please pick a religion to provide you with morality. Note that not all humans struggle with morality though. For those humans that do struggle, we have religions to choose from, so please pick one.

Please also try to learn the meaning of the words you use as that will greatly help in debate.
For example, humans are not mechanisms just because you don't understand and/or fail to look up the meaning of the word.

mech-an-ism
noun
1.
a system of parts working together in a machine; a piece of machinery.

2.
a natural or established process by which something takes place or is brought about.

I'm left to wonder what your native language is as your post failed within the first 8 words. Then you ponder the difference between a machine and a human as though it actually confuses you.

To assist with the confusion over the meaning of these English words:

ma-chine
noun
an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.

hu-man
adjective
relating to or characteristic of people or human beings.
a human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.

In the strict dictionary sense of "machine" I agree with you. But this is not significant to my argument. You are arguing that organisms have a different origin to machines not that they are qualitatively different in terms of structure. In each case they are composed wholly of sub structures all of which obey the laws of chemistry and physics, it is in that sense that I am describing people as machines, not how they originate which is irrelevant to my argument.

[Bust Nak]

You want to embrace science (which is to embrace causality) yet at the same time conveniently abandon causality in order to define right and wrong as being a free choice! How can you possibly scientifically disagree with what I'm saying?

I can scientifically disagree with you by pointing out free choice is compatible with causality.

[Inquirer]

You want to embrace science (which is to embrace causality) yet at the same time conveniently abandon causality in order to define right and wrong as being a free choice! How can you possibly scientifically disagree with what I'm saying?

I can scientifically disagree with you by pointing out free choice is compatible with causality.

I take that to mean you can prove that some event was demonstrably not causal, is that right? If so can you elaborate with an example?