Assuming that the robot is capable of rational thought and empathy, it is its own fault since it's capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong and knowing the effect of harmful actions on others.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Gods responsibility
- Thread starter idav
- Start date
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
The question is this:
Is it god's responsibility? Or is that merely the expectations of god's responsibility that you project?
I have problems with perfection as a concept, but if what you mean by "perfect" includes anything like "not evil at all", then your hypothetical scenario is logically contradictory. If the robot was not evil at all, then giving it free will would not result in it becoming evil.
I think of free will as like riding a bike without training wheels: if the wheels were attached, this would prevent you from falling down, but when the wheels are removed, it's not inevitable that you fall down; that depends on how good your sense of balance is.
This is an issue where the limited nature of humanity comes into play: we're only responsible for the consequences of our actions to the extent that those consequences were foreseeable, and even then, the positive consequences can outweigh the unavoidable negative consequences.
The consequences associated with having kids are good more often than not, so we're justified in having them even if their effects are sometimes negative.
God doesn't get to use a human-style justification, though:
- thanks to omniscience, all consequences of God's creation are foreseeable to God.
- thanks to omnipotence, none of the negative consequences of God's creation are avoidable.
So even if God doesn't intend a particular consequence, he's still negligent, since any negative consequence was foreseeable and avoidable to God.
Was that at me?
I'm not a theist, and I certainly don't think that the flood happened, but in that story, the fact that humanity got to the point that God felt the need to kill nearly everyone on Earth was God's own fault.
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
So the robot's motivation for killing is simply because 'it became evil' ?
If there is culpability its probably on whatever made it 'become evil' (whatever that means).
J.R.R. Tolkien created Sauron. Thus, J.R.R. Tolkien must be accountable for Boromir's death. He could have written it any way he wanted, but instead he robbed him of his sanity with an evil ring, and then when redemption was just on the horizon he shot him full of arrows. His lasting memory in his companions minds being one of betrayal and dishonor.
He could have written it any way he wanted. He could have left Sauron out completely, or the ring, or the orcs, or arrows. It could have been a novel about building hammocks and drinking lemonade (it kind of is, actually haha). So, why did Tolkien make a universe where Boromir would have to die? Is it because Tolkien is evil?
Yes they use the knowledge to inflict good or evil. Maybe they conclude we are a parasite.
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
They don't care. Machines have no ambition. Hollywood tells you the machines are going to take over, but no machine ever says, "Gee, I'd like to run the lives of people." Machines don't have a gut reaction and they don't get hungry. They don't feel resentment.
Your original hypothetical scenario assumed that the robot is evil and that killing people is evil:
Its a question to gods motives.
Perfect is to the designers specifications. If he wanted altruistic then the creation couldnt be free to choose.
Now if I tried to create a good guy and they turned out evil that wasnt the intention. I can see some forsight would need to be part of it. However omniscience cant be so much that it hinders omnipotence. Knowing would actually be possible worlds and god does, with omnipotence, the world he wants. He could choose to look but would be looking at his choices as well as the alternatives due to omnipotence.
They would rationally deduce their reasoning. Maybe just wants power.
If god is sending in all sorts of evils at us it doesn't seem all that fair. Then your just messing with your creation. I can see why people might think god is malevolent.
That it became due to choice.
It would do whats in its best interest.
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
What evidence do you have to suggest this?
I figure fear of death as a sign of sentience but I suppose thats not a given. Might be altruistic, whatever it chose.
To choose to be evil is itself an evil act. Free will or not, how does a good robot commit the evil act of choosing to be evil? It's inherently contradictory.
I dont think perfect means good.
So then this robot - including its form and function - is exactly as deliberately intended?
If so, then I think the answer to your question in the OP is obvious: since the robot is functioning exactly as designed, then how it functions - i.e. its actions are the fault of its designer.
How do you figure? Free will is the freedom to choose to act on our will; it isn't the freedom to choose our desires.
How could omniscience ever "hinder omnipotence"?
Fair enough. As I mentioned, I was assuming your intended meaning. Personally, I reject the idea of perfection except where it's measured against an artificial standard (e.g. a perfect game of bowling).
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
So. No evidence whatsoever. I'm glad we cleared that up.
In a sense will is desire.
If it knows what will happen then it isnt free to do otherwise. Omniscience should be open to possibilities. If a then b and if a1 then b1 else c.
Its a hypothetical fir a sentience we would create. The sentience has to be programmed to some extent.