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.

[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.

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

Care to rephrase?

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

"Same" in what sense?

.

[Jose Fly]

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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #1]

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.

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:

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?

[brunumb]

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.

[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?

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"?

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.

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

"Same" in what sense?

.

Same in the send it renders the machine inoperative.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #1]

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.

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:

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?

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?

[Inquirer]

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.

Why 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]

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.

So slavery is justifiable on this model surely? 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?

[Jose Fly]

So slavery is justifiable on this model surely?

Explain how.

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.