The Covenience Machine

[Answerman]

I answered yes, with one caveat. That a yes answer would be biblically ethical.

I know, I know, this raises more questions than it answers.

BTW, isn't a gun a kind of convenience machine, it makes biblically ethical killing so much more effecient. It also could cause unintentional deaths and contribute to environmental distress. So I think I know TB answer to this question.

 

[panta dokimazete]

So, you *assumed* that you'd net more hedons because "it just can't be wrong to drive my car." SO you've nothing but beg questions here.

Actually, I've proposed hypotheticals - the exercise was never to validate the morality of driving cars - the car discussion was supposed to be analogous to your original proposition. You have fleshed out your hypothetical somewhat, but just as you have pointed out, the data set for validation is incomplete. Unless you can quantify additional criteria, we are really just poking around in the dark.

Also, I proposed from the beginning that you and I both presuppose that driving are cars is morally acceptable, since we both are morally sensitive creatures, yet we both drive cars.

 

[Calvibaptist]

I guess I voted the lone yes so far.

I already voted yes several times by buying several automobiles.

HYPOCRITES!

I don't think it is hypocritical to say that I would not vote for the development of a "Convenience Machine" that would cost 75,000 lives just from the development of it. This is what the OP asked. And I responded that I would not vote for it.

Now, if the OP had said that the MISUSE of this "Convenience Machine" would cost that many lives, I would vote for it and tell those 75,000 people not to misuse it.

Most deaths in car accidents are the result of some form of misuse of the car. We could just as easily exchange car with airplane, alcohol, gun, bow and arrow, stick, small pebbles (for you Monty Python fan). The misuse of any of these things can cause death. That does not mean they are not good in and of themselves.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I guess I voted the lone yes so far.

I already voted yes several times by buying several automobiles.

HYPOCRITES!

I don't think it is hypocritical to say that I would not vote for the development of a "Convenience Machine" that would cost 75,000 lives just from the development of it. This is what the OP asked. And I responded that I would not vote for it.

Now, if the OP had said that the MISUSE of this "Convenience Machine" would cost that many lives, I would vote for it and tell those 75,000 people not to misuse it.

Most deaths in car accidents are the result of some form of misuse of the car. We could just as easily exchange car with airplane, alcohol, gun, bow and arrow, stick, small pebbles (for you Monty Python fan). The misuse of any of these things can cause death. That does not mean they are not good in and of themselves.

It was a joke. I would not actually label people so wantonly.

 

[Sonoftheday]

A difference between this hypothetical Convience Machine and Automobiles is this.

With an automobile it is never me who will do the killing, and it will never be me who gets killed. The automobile is completely safe for me it is only those other people who dont know what thier doing, or dont care, that actually get killed or kill others.

This line of thinking of course does not match up to reality, but it is the way we think. We very rarely get into an automobile and say today I might die on my way to work, or perhaps kill someone else. We rarely blame the car company when someone does die, its like blaming the gun company because some bloke used it to do himself in. Its always some persons fault, ie. the Driver/s.

If we looked at the convience machine the same way that we look at automobiles then we would all say Yes. But we are looking at it as a machine that will cost lives to work, not cost lives becuase of the carelessness of people, or the ocassional malfunction of machinery.

 

[Jim Johnston]

So, you *assumed* that you'd net more hedons because "it just can't be wrong to drive my car." SO you've nothing but beg questions here.

Actually, I've proposed hypotheticals - the exercise was never to validate the morality of driving cars - the car discussion was supposed to be analogous to your original proposition. You have fleshed out your hypothetical somewhat, but just as you have pointed out, the data set for validation is incomplete. Unless you can quantify additional criteria, we are really just poking around in the dark.

Also, I proposed from the beginning that you and I both presuppose that driving are cars is morally acceptable, since we both are morally sensitive creatures, yet we both drive cars.

I don't think it's immoral to drive cars. I think you're overreacting. I've said this three times now.

Funny, you proposed that the data was on your side, that it was cost beneficial to drive vs. the lost life, but you can't show that. I showed how you begged the question. I thought it was obvious. If you can't see that then...

That we both agree that it isn't immoral (per se) doesn't mean that the way you're getting to your conclusion is the right or best way.

I think you're mixing way too many things up, and that is creating problems for you.

 

[Jim Johnston]

I don't think it is hypocritical to say that I would not vote for the development of a "Convenience Machine" that would cost 75,000 lives just from the development of it. This is what the OP asked. And I responded that I would not vote for it.

Now, if the OP had said that the MISUSE of this "Convenience Machine" would cost that many lives, I would vote for it and tell those 75,000 people not to misuse it.

Most deaths in car accidents are the result of some form of misuse of the car. We could just as easily exchange car with airplane, alcohol, gun, bow and arrow, stick, small pebbles (for you Monty Python fan). The misuse of any of these things can cause death. That does not mean they are not good in and of themselves.

Use or missuse doesn't matter. Fact is, it costs lives. I'm trying to see what the justification is.

If one said that people would missuse the convenience machine, and it would cost 75,000 lives, it's notm clear that we should then say, "Oh, well, that it's misuse that causes the deaths, let's vote her in!"

Lastly, when people make statistical arguments, they need to show the statistics. Where are the stats for "most deaths."

And, not to get into a long post:

a) Let's say we exchanged those other things, why think it's moral? You just pushed the question back.

b) Guns primarily cause the deaths of criminals etc. There'd be too many relevant disanalogies for your counter to work.

 

[Jim Johnston]

A difference between this hypothetical Convience Machine and Automobiles is this.

With an automobile it is never me who will do the killing, and it will never be me who gets killed. The automobile is completely safe for me it is only those other people who dont know what thier doing, or dont care, that actually get killed or kill others.

This line of thinking of course does not match up to reality, but it is the way we think. We very rarely get into an automobile and say today I might die on my way to work, or perhaps kill someone else. We rarely blame the car company when someone does die, its like blaming the gun company because some bloke used it to do himself in. Its always some persons fault, ie. the Driver/s.

If we looked at the convience machine the same way that we look at automobiles then we would all say Yes. But we are looking at it as a machine that will cost lives to work, not cost lives becuase of the carelessness of people, or the ocassional malfunction of machinery.

I don't think that matters. Fact is, 75,000 lives are lost because of convenience. In fact, I never said the machine would do anything. I just said it would cost 75,000 lives for us to have it. Same with the car.

One point you do bring up that's good, perhaps we should be more careful when we drive. More cognizent of our surroundings. Not take our convenience machine for granted. Realize the cost we pay for it. Thank God for it. As for clarity when we drive. Saftey for other drivers. Etc.

 

[RamistThomist]

Dude, that is so awesome. I see that you have the Carl F Henry 6 volume set. Of course, you are holding a shotgun and looking really bad tough and the first thing I notice is your books in the background!

 

[RamistThomist]

3. Remington 870 Magnum

Same gun I have.

 

[VictorBravo]

Dude, that is so awesome. I see that you have the Carl F Henry 6 volume set. Of course, you are holding a shotgun and looking really bad tough and the first thing I notice is your books in the background!

Yeah, I noticed the James White book too.

 

[RamistThomist]

Dude, that is so awesome. I see that you have the Carl F Henry 6 volume set. Of course, you are holding a shotgun and looking really bad tough and the first thing I notice is your books in the background!

Yeah, I noticed the James White book too.

In the other picture you can see that Bahnsen book. I also noticed Calvin, Reymind, Frame, and Hodge.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Dude, that is so awesome. I see that you have the Carl F Henry 6 volume set. Of course, you are holding a shotgun and looking really bad tough and the first thing I notice is your books in the background!

Yeah, I noticed the James White book too.

I noticed the gut...but then he used to be in the Navy.

 

[Jim Johnston]

Dude, that is so awesome. I see that you have the Carl F Henry 6 volume set. Of course, you are holding a shotgun and looking really bad tough and the first thing I notice is your books in the background!

Yeah, I noticed the James White book too.

I noticed the gut...but then he used to be in the Navy.

Camera adds 15 pounds!

I had a 6 pack in that pick. Don't know why it came out that way...

I'd think you guys would want the extra padding given that you're all America's bullet sponges!

 

[Jim Johnston]

Dude, that is so awesome. I see that you have the Carl F Henry 6 volume set. Of course, you are holding a shotgun and looking really bad tough and the first thing I notice is your books in the background!

Yeah, I noticed the James White book too.

In the other picture you can see that Bahnsen book. I also noticed Calvin, Reymind, Frame, and Hodge.

And you can see Kline's Kingdom Prologue too!

 

[RamistThomist]

It's right under your elbow. I had to look for a second. Now I am going to be looking behind you to see what you have been reading!

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I haven't read through the whole thread yet and I voted yes already. I wonder if the convenience machine will save lives also. It seems it would have to. It seems like this is a comparison to the automobile. We use contemplate this kind of stuff during class when I was in college.

 

[panta dokimazete]

So, you *assumed* that you'd net more hedons because "it just can't be wrong to drive my car." SO you've nothing but beg questions here.

Actually, I've proposed hypotheticals - the exercise was never to validate the morality of driving cars - the car discussion was supposed to be analogous to your original proposition. You have fleshed out your hypothetical somewhat, but just as you have pointed out, the data set for validation is incomplete. Unless you can quantify additional criteria, we are really just poking around in the dark.

Also, I proposed from the beginning that you and I both presuppose that driving are cars is morally acceptable, since we both are morally sensitive creatures, yet we both drive cars.

I don't think it's immoral to drive cars. I think you're overreacting. I've said this three times now.

I doubt I'm overreacting, but I admire your use of hyperbole.

I think that I have said multiple time that we agree in principle that driving cars is not immoral.

Funny, you proposed that the data was on your side, that it was cost beneficial to drive vs. the lost life, but you can't show that. I showed how you begged the question. I thought it was obvious. If you can't see that then...

Tom, I am sure that the datum is supportive. I have not the time, nor the inclination to gather it for our hypothetical discussion.

That we both agree that it isn't immoral (per se) doesn't mean that the way you're getting to your conclusion is the right or best way.

I am sure you are right - besides casting stones , what alternatives have you proposed?

I think you're mixing way too many things up, and that is creating problems for you.

Problems? Again, with the hyperbole...

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

3. Remington 870 Magnum

Same gun I have.

I had one. I used for deer hunting. I gave it away to a buddy who sold his deer gun to buy an engagement ring. Poor sap. I took pity on him.

 

[Jim Johnston]

So, you *assumed* that you'd net more hedons because "it just can't be wrong to drive my car." SO you've nothing but beg questions here.

Actually, I've proposed hypotheticals - the exercise was never to validate the morality of driving cars - the car discussion was supposed to be analogous to your original proposition. You have fleshed out your hypothetical somewhat, but just as you have pointed out, the data set for validation is incomplete. Unless you can quantify additional criteria, we are really just poking around in the dark.

Also, I proposed from the beginning that you and I both presuppose that driving are cars is morally acceptable, since we both are morally sensitive creatures, yet we both drive cars.

I doubt I'm overreacting, but I admire your use of hyperbole.

I think that I have said multiple time that we agree in principle that driving cars is not immoral.



Tom, I am sure that the datum is supportive. I have not the time, nor the inclination to gather it for our hypothetical discussion.

That we both agree that it isn't immoral (per se) doesn't mean that the way you're getting to your conclusion is the right or best way.

I am sure you are right - besides casting stones , what alternatives have you proposed?

I think you're mixing way too many things up, and that is creating problems for you.

Problems? Again, with the hyperbole...

I think you've now been relegated to posting unsubstantial responses. I'll take that as a tacit admission that you can't defend your position other than a wink, wink, "Well, we both agree anyway, and I could show the numbers if I wanted to", nudge, nudge.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Actually, I've proposed hypotheticals - the exercise was never to validate the morality of driving cars - the car discussion was supposed to be analogous to your original proposition. You have fleshed out your hypothetical somewhat, but just as you have pointed out, the data set for validation is incomplete. Unless you can quantify additional criteria, we are really just poking around in the dark.

Also, I proposed from the beginning that you and I both presuppose that driving are cars is morally acceptable, since we both are morally sensitive creatures, yet we both drive cars.

I doubt I'm overreacting, but I admire your use of hyperbole.

I think that I have said multiple time that we agree in principle that driving cars is not immoral.



Tom, I am sure that the datum is supportive. I have not the time, nor the inclination to gather it for our hypothetical discussion.



I am sure you are right - besides casting stones , what alternatives have you proposed?

I think you're mixing way too many things up, and that is creating problems for you.

Problems? Again, with the hyperbole...

I think you've now been relegated to posting unsubstantial responses. I'll take that as a tacit admission that you can't defend your position other than a wink, wink, "Well, we both agree anyway, and I could show the numbers if I wanted to", nudge, nudge.

And I think you have conceded the conversation, as you have failed to demonstrate alternative methods for consideration. I don't really see any value presenting additional substantiation, since it is clear you are here only to critique.

wink, wink - nudge, nudge

 

[Jim Johnston]

Here's the essence of the convo.

The conversation was: why is it moral.

Your response: Because the good reaps more hedons than the bad.

My response: Prove it.

Your response: It's to complicated, but I could, just trust me.

I don't let atheists get off the hook when they think saying so makes it so, I can't let you either. Being a Christian isn't a free ride to making poor arguments.

So, yes, I've conceeded that you couldn't provide a good moral justification. You at least got that right.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Got about 10 minutes before chow time, so, to empirically prove my point to my brother, since that is the only evidence he will accept (such a doubting Tom...):

~6000 ambulance services in the US - say they - in toto - only make make 5 life saving trips per week:

6000 X 5 X 52 = ~1,560,000

Total fatalities by auto in the US/year = ~40000

I have the references if you need them.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

The key is assumption of known (or guessed at) risks. That's why the auto example would be acceptable and this proposal would not be.

Say that tested it in Russia for the past 10 years. They don't know how many deaths it would produce, but 75,000 was an average. The intention isn't to kill, it is an unintended by-product. They do know that deaths will occur, roughly 75,000, but it could be 65,000 one year. And, as I said, they're dedicated to making it safer.

They put it up for a vote here, which way would you go?

How could they *know*? It seems to me that there are moral and immoral uses of this convenience machine. Hypothetical arguments for or against based on outcomes does not overturn the right of the individual to weigh these chioces--Automible drivers ought to know and take responsibility for the dangers of driving--the same with your "convenience machine". Convenience is not a wicked goal--it costs no lives, and murder is a sin.

 

[VictorBravo]

How could they *know*? It seems to me that there are moral and immoral uses of this convenience machine. Hypothetical arguments for or against based on outcomes does not overturn the right of the individual to weigh these chioces--Automible drivers ought to know and take responsibility for the dangers of driving--the same with your "convenience machine". Convenience is not a wicked goal--it costs no lives, and murder is a sin.

The original hypothetical presented the knowledge that deaths would result as a given. So the statements were assuming that in the argument.

In other words, the original question asked how would one vote it if we are certain that convenience did cost lives.

 

[Jim Johnston]

Got about 10 minutes before chow time, so, to empirically prove my point to my brother, since that is the only evidence he will accept (such a doubting Tom...):

~6000 ambulance services in the US - say they - in toto - only make make 5 life saving trips per week:

6000 X 5 X 52 = ~1,560,000

Total fatalities by auto in the US/year = ~40000

I have the references if you need them.

Your argument only works if you assign an equal amount of hedons all around. Or, if you view your facts in isolations from other facts.

Death could cost 50 hedons while life saving could reap 15 hedons.

When S suffers, for him, it costs 1,000,000,000,000 hedons. When S* gets pleasure it's worth 25 hedons.

How would you know about the above two? Where's the calculations. Gonna find that on your google search engine? Perhaps Wikipedia has an article on it?

Or, say those whose lives were saved went out and did more evils resulting in a net loss of 10,000,000 hedons. Say one became the next Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Amin rolled up into one.

Or, one of those who died by getting hit, counterfactually, happened to be the person who would have (had it not been for the car) invented a cure for cancer, thus saving untold millions of lives. Thus the end result puts you in the red. Negative hedon balance.

J.D. haven't you learned anything from Bahnsen, Frame, Helm, Byl, Oliphint, Rae, Moreland, Craig, Shaffer-Landeau, Pojman, Rachels, Adams, etc., etc., etc.,

YOU HAVE NO WAY TO CALCULATE THE MULTIFARIOUS FACTORS!!! How many times do you need to read that? You have no clue how much John X has to pay and how much John Y receives. No one has been able to do this. As Bahnsen has said, you'd have to be omniscient to be a Utilitarian.

Back to the drawing board for you....

 

[Jim Johnston]

The key is assumption of known (or guessed at) risks. That's why the auto example would be acceptable and this proposal would not be.

Say that tested it in Russia for the past 10 years. They don't know how many deaths it would produce, but 75,000 was an average. The intention isn't to kill, it is an unintended by-product. They do know that deaths will occur, roughly 75,000, but it could be 65,000 one year. And, as I said, they're dedicated to making it safer.

They put it up for a vote here, which way would you go?

How could they *know*? It seems to me that there are moral and immoral uses of this convenience machine. Hypothetical arguments for or against based on outcomes does not overturn the right of the individual to weigh these chioces--Automible drivers ought to know and take responsibility for the dangers of driving--the same with your "convenience machine". Convenience is not a wicked goal--it costs no lives, and murder is a sin.

I never said that it was a wicked goal. I'm actually for it, and cars, etc.

I tried to get people to give moral justifications for actions.

Thought it would bring out someo interesting points.

Apparently some people feel threatened that I'd ask them to present moral justifications for actions rather than taking things for granted.

I repent in sackcloth and ashes.

As Bruce Lee said in Enter The Dragon: "Don't think, feel."

No more of this and this and a lot more of this and this

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Dear Merry Fellow,

I hope you understand I'm not dodging your question. There are so many other factors that enter into a "cause and effect" relationship. I agree with you and Bahnsen in saying that one would have to be omniscient to be utilitarian. Further, I agree with Clark in saying that a cause and effect relationship would also require omniscience to ascertain.

How exactly do machines kill people? Are not machines extensions of the human will and action? Are not machines morally neutral? Perhaps I'm not limiting my thoughts and considerations to your hypothetical situation. I'm not sure that this question can be answered without the specifics of the case--how do those that die from the use of this machine die? Is it human neglect or error? It is a violation of the 6th Commandment, or is it not?

Can the machine be improved so that it poses less danger? Should we refrain form manufacture until such improvements are studied, and made? Is the right use of this machine harmless, and the misuse that kills?

Sorry, brother. Perhaps my mental faculties are not very well suited to this type of hypothetical situation. I would be willing to look at any particular case, and compare it to the Moral Law to arrive at a Biblical finding. But your situation raises too many questions for me to give a good answer.

Thanks,

 

[Jim Johnston]

Dear Merry Fellow,

I hope you understand I'm not dodging your question. There are so many other factors that enter into a "cause and effect" relationship. I agree with you and Bahnsen in saying that one would have to be omniscient to be utilitarian. Further, I agree with Clark in saying that a cause and effect relationship would also require omniscience to ascertain.

How exactly do machines kill people? Are not machines extensions of the human will and action? Are not machines morally neutral? Perhaps I'm not limiting my thoughts and considerations to your hypothetical situation. I'm not sure that this question can be answered without the specifics of the case--how do those that die from the use of this machine die? Is it human neglect or error? It is a violation of the 6th Commandment, or is it not?

Can the machine be improved so that it poses less danger? Should we refrain form manufacture until such improvements are studied, and made? Is the right use of this machine harmless, and the misuse that kills?

Sorry, brother. Perhaps my mental faculties are not very well suited to this type of hypothetical situation. I would be willing to look at any particular case, and compare it to the Moral Law to arrive at a Biblical finding. But your situation raises too many questions for me to give a good answer.

Thanks,

Rev. Todd,

Sorry for snapping.

the point it: By having X machine, that will cost us X-hundred/thousand/million?... life.

X machine is largly for our convenience, for our ability to grow economically, etc.

Fact is, human life is dying. Howver that happens - accideent, on pupose, etc. - doesn't really matter. We have thousands of dead image bearers for our (largely) convenience machine.

Since having X machine and using it is an action we perform, and since it has certain side effects, and one of those effetcs is loss of human life, then our actions (or approval of the situation) are responsible (whether directly or indirectly, on purpose or by accidents, doesn't matter) for loss of life. It seems that this could be morally evaluated. For example, say that X-machine were the black slaves. We rightly ask them to justify slavery. We find out that the convenience wasn't worth the price.

So, I'm just asking about how we bring moral principles to the situation and apply them, some answers might say something about our character and motives, and thus answering the question touches on the 4 main (or three, if you include the last two, as do Frame and Bahnsen) types of ethical systems.

That was basically the purpose, but this thread dragging on and getting lower on my priority list since other fish have arisen to fry.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Use or missuse doesn't matter. Fact is, it costs lives. I'm trying to see what the justification is.

If one said that people would missuse the convenience machine, and it would cost 75,000 lives, it's notm clear that we should then say, "Oh, well, that it's misuse that causes the deaths, let's vote her in!"

It does matter because the proper use of a convenience machine would not cause these deaths, but the missuse would. The same could be said for anything. Proper use of a shovel won't cause 75,000 deaths. But if you use is improperly to stab 75,000 people with it, it will cost 75,000 deaths. Should we then not create the shovel? It matters a lot.

Lastly, when people make statistical arguments, they need to show the statistics. Where are the stats for "most deaths."

Simply put, if you drive the speed limit, obey all traffic laws, wear your seat belt, and watch out for other drivers (who are all doing the same) as you should, there won't be the 75,000 deaths. The accidents don't happen because people are properly using the convenience machine. They happen because people fail to take all the necessary precautions and use it properly.