Responsibility

[Resha Caner]

If someone creates/develops an item, to what extent are they responsible for the consequences? There is a spectrum of possibilities here, and I don't claim I can fully describe that spectrum, but I'm curious if you would say the person is always responsible, never responsible, or if there is a breakpoint somewhere in between.

The spectrum I speak of would range across things like:
* The person knows the item has problems that can't be avoided
* The person knows the item has problems, but provides contingencies that can be used to avoid them
* The person knows the item has problems, but makes sure no one is ever affected by them

Normally when I first start a thread in the science forum, I only intend to discuss science. But I can only think of a few times when the discussion hasn't been diverted to religion. In this case, I have no such intentions. You can probably see the connections to religion as easily as I can.

 

[lesliedellow]

A limited being like a human may not be held wholly resonsible for not forseeing all the consequences of his invention. But an omnipotent and omniscient being is certainly wholly responsibe for his creation, and all that follows from it.

 

[sfs]

I've quoted it before. . . Walker Percy's prayer of the scientist (in the unlikely event the scientist prays): “Lord, grant that my work increase knowledge and help other men. Failing that, Lord, grant that it will not lead to man’s destruction. Failing that, Lord, grant that my article in Brain be published before the destruction takes place.”

Humans are not capable of forestalling all possible negative consequences of their creations. And generally, if you don't create an item someone else will create something similar, so just dropping an idea doesn't help much.

 

[Winken]

Suppose I answer a question about anything and reply with great precision about what the questioner must do. I think I have opened myself up to some real problems, perhaps legal.

 

[Resha Caner]

Mmm. People only seem to be looking at one point on the spectrum I tried to describe. It always begins with, "The person knows there are problems ..." It's then a matter of what they do with that knowledge.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If someone creates/develops an item, to what extent are they responsible for the consequences? There is a spectrum of possibilities here, and I don't claim I can fully describe that spectrum, but I'm curious if you would say the person is always responsible, never responsible, or if there is a breakpoint somewhere in between.

That would completely depend on the actual consequences, how they relate to or are caused by the item in question, the creator's motivations and abilities etc.

The spectrum I speak of would range across things like:
* The person knows the item has problems that can't be avoided
* The person knows the item has problems, but provides contingencies that can be used to avoid them
* The person knows the item has problems, but makes sure no one is ever affected by them

Sounds reasonable.

Normally when I first start a thread in the science forum, I only intend to discuss science. But I can only think of a few times when the discussion hasn't been diverted to religion. In this case, I have no such intentions. You can probably see the connections to religion as easily as I can.

In case of a God creating things, I'ld say that such an entity is 100% responsible for his creation, if this entity is defined as gods usually are: all-knowing, all-intelligent, all-powerfull,...

Such an entity knows the consequences of his actions right down to the invidual atomic behaviours of literally everything, even before he/she/it engages in anything.

If that entity creates something and it goes wrong, it is fully that creator's responsability.

 

[Resha Caner]

In case of a God creating things, I'ld say that such an entity is 100% responsible for his creation, if this entity is defined as gods usually are: all-knowing, all-intelligent, all-powerfull,...

Such an entity knows the consequences of his actions right down to the invidual atomic behaviours of literally everything, even before he/she/it engages in anything.

If that entity creates something and it goes wrong, it is fully that creator's responsability.

OK. If a means for avoiding the problem is provided, but others don't avail themselves of that means, is the creator still responsible for the problems these others have?

 

[Adstar]

If someone creates/develops an item, to what extent are they responsible for the consequences? There is a spectrum of possibilities here, and I don't claim I can fully describe that spectrum, but I'm curious if you would say the person is always responsible, never responsible, or if there is a breakpoint somewhere in between.

The spectrum I speak of would range across things like:
* The person knows the item has problems that can't be avoided
* The person knows the item has problems, but provides contingencies that can be used to avoid them
* The person knows the item has problems, but makes sure no one is ever affected by them

Normally when I first start a thread in the science forum, I only intend to discuss science. But I can only think of a few times when the discussion hasn't been diverted to religion. In this case, I have no such intentions. You can probably see the connections to religion as easily as I can.

Yes is sounds like you are using this example to lead to blaming God for creating human beings he knew would be faulty and thus leading to the conclusion that God is reponsible for all the sin in the world and is unjustified in casting people into the eternal lake of fire...

Was i correct ???

 

[Resha Caner]

Was i correct ???

No.

 

[Adstar]

No.

Ok thanks for the response..

 

[DogmaHunter]

OK. If a means for avoiding the problem is provided, but others don't avail themselves of that means, is the creator still responsible for the problems these others have?

That would depend on how clearly those instructions were communicated as well as the reliability of the medium used, all in relation with how impactfull the consequences are.

There's also still the issue of the problem being there in the first place.
It's on thing to provide instructions for dealing with an unavoidable problem.
But is the problem truelly unavoidable?

Consider a samsung smartphone. Suppose the instruction manual comes with a whole chapter dedicated on how to hold the phone, because when done incorrectly it might explode while holding it to your face.

There the issue isn't the instructions... the issue is that the phone can explode. They shouldn't be releasing a phone knowing that it can explode in the first place.

So.... taking that and projecting it unto christianity....

Yes, I'ld say the "instructions" are very vague and seriously up for interpretation. With a "range of interpretation" that is so vast, that 2 followers of the same book can come to opposite conclusions on certain things.

I'ld also say that the chosen medium is a complete fail. We're left with relying on translations of copies of translations of copies of copies of..., most of them written decades, centuries even, after being "revealed" and with exactly zero pathways of objective independent verification.

All in all, the entire thing fails, accross the board, to live upto my expectations - considering the supposed source of this "instruction set".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There's been debate for years whether science is value-neutral or not, and the degree to which it is a socially constructed enterprise. But it's a complicated question, sometimes it's one, sometimes the other, sometimes a bit of both.

The classic case is atomic theory, which started as blue-sky scientific enquiry, and led to the discovery of atomic fission and fusion, which contain the partially realised potential seeds of man's destruction (fission/fusion bombs) and man's technological salvation (fission/fusion power), while opening the door to the advanced technologies of modern civilisation (electronics, lasers, etc).

If you can find juncture points that allow you to reasonably allocate specific responsibility for any of those developments, I suspect you're mistaken.

 

[Resha Caner]

That would depend on how clearly those instructions were communicated as well as the reliability of the medium used, all in relation with how impactfull the consequences are.

Fair enough.

There's also still the issue of the problem being there in the first place.
It's on thing to provide instructions for dealing with an unavoidable problem.
But is the problem truelly unavoidable?

That's a good question. WRT evil in general, I would basically say it's unavoidable, though that would require some unpacking.

And I did read your post. Your conclusion is that the solution is unacceptable.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Other agents can repurpose items for their own ends (good or evil). Car-makers do not intend their creations to be used to run people over.

But natural evils (hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.) are not at the control of any other agent than their creator (if any). They can't be repurposed. At best, it is left to time and chance whether an evil strikes here rather than there, or now instead of then.

 

[Resha Caner]

Other agents can repurpose items for their own ends (good or evil). Car-makers do not intend their creations to be used to run people over.

But natural evils (hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.) are not at the control of any other agent than their creator (if any). They can't be repurposed. At best, it is left to time and chance whether an evil strikes here rather than there, or now instead of then.

If we could build a windmill that withstands hurricane force winds, we'd have an awesome power source.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Fair enough.



That's a good question. WRT evil in general, I would basically say it's unavoidable, though that would require some unpacking.

And I did read your post. Your conclusion is that the solution is unacceptable.

My conclusion isn't that the solution is "unacceptable".

First, I'ld question if the problem to be dealt with, was indeed unavoidable.
Second, assuming it indeed is unavoidable, we'ld have to evaluate the medium and clarity of the instructions to deal with the problem.

In that last context, I'ld say that the instruction set isn't clear at all and the the chosen medium was a very bad choice.

Also, given the supposed source of this "instruction set", it doesn't live upto my expectations. An all-powerfull, all-knowing, etc entity would surely be aware of the problems with the instruction set.

So for me, this simply doesn't add up.

 

[Resha Caner]

My conclusion isn't that the solution is "unacceptable".

First, I'ld question if the problem to be dealt with, was indeed unavoidable.
Second, assuming it indeed is unavoidable, we'ld have to evaluate the medium and clarity of the instructions to deal with the problem.

In that last context, I'ld say that the instruction set isn't clear at all and the the chosen medium was a very bad choice.

Also, given the supposed source of this "instruction set", it doesn't live upto my expectations. An all-powerfull, all-knowing, etc entity would surely be aware of the problems with the instruction set.

So for me, this simply doesn't add up.

Are you familiar with Shannon's Law?

 

[Loudmouth]

If someone creates/develops an item, to what extent are they responsible for the consequences? There is a spectrum of possibilities here, and I don't claim I can fully describe that spectrum, but I'm curious if you would say the person is always responsible, never responsible, or if there is a breakpoint somewhere in between.

The spectrum I speak of would range across things like:
* The person knows the item has problems that can't be avoided
* The person knows the item has problems, but provides contingencies that can be used to avoid them
* The person knows the item has problems, but makes sure no one is ever affected by them

Normally when I first start a thread in the science forum, I only intend to discuss science. But I can only think of a few times when the discussion hasn't been diverted to religion. In this case, I have no such intentions. You can probably see the connections to religion as easily as I can.

I see it as a question of free will. If someone is aware of the problems an item has and isn't being coerced in any way, then the creator of the item is not responsible for what happens.

If a drug manufacturer doesn't tell consumers about a side effect they know exists, then the drug manufacturer is liable for damages that the item causes.

Imagine that there is a mine owner who tries to save money by cutting costs on safety measures. The miners know that the mine is unsafe, but they are hard up and really need the money. They are lured by money to put their lives at risk, something they wouldn't do if there was no money involved. In this case, I think the the mine owner is responsible for any deaths or damage his mine causes because his workers are being coerced by the lure of money.

A lot of this is actually covered in ethics courses designed to educate people on how to properly conduct scientific research involving humans (and animals as well). One of the tricky parts is understanding how the design of your experiment may be compromising free will, such as offering large amounts of money to try out an experimental drug. I have taken some of those courses, and it does give you a better understanding of the ethics surrounding questions like these.