A philosophical question pertaining to self-driving cars

[vz71]

Every minute of every day, a child dies somewhere of diarrhea or another water born disease, apparently arranged personally by God for their betterment. Every child since the beginning of time who dies suffering is a cog in God’s unchanging plan for their betterment.

I’ve seen many different theologies, but dude, yours takes the biscuit.

It is apparent you did not read the second sentence of my post.
But you feel qualified to criticize it.
In my school that would warant a failing grade.

One should read and understand thoroughly before attempting to criticize.

 

[inocente]

It is apparent you did not read the second sentence of my post.
But you feel qualified to criticize it.
In my school that would warant a failing grade.

One should read and understand thoroughly before attempting to criticize.

Your “warant” is misspelled, so in my school etc.

I read every sentence.

You said “Some suffering is God’s intent, and for our betterment. Some is brought on by our own decisions”. So, do those children suffer and die through their own decisions, God having them suffer even though they are too young to even be able to make decisions? Or do they die through our decisions, God making them suffer to pay for our decisions? Or do they suffer because it was always part of God’s plan to make those children suffer? Whichever it is, it’s unjust.

And then you say “But no matter the decision we make, we do not alter the plan”. So there’s nothing we can do to stop the children suffering, no decision we can make, no point in donating or giving up our time to provide them with clean water, God’s plan is that they must suffer and no matter what decision we make, we do not alter His plan.

Perhaps it was the way you explained it, but it takes the biscuit.

Anywho, back on topic, given the choice of driving home at night with self-driving cars coming at me, or drunk drivers coming at me, I’d choose the former every time. Automation doesn’t need to be perfect, just better than drunk drivers or those talking on their phones or driving way over the speed limit, etc.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

In the world where I live, things are exactly what they seem to be. When I hear the garage door opening, I am (almost) 100% sure that it signifies that my spouse comes home. It could be that some space alien is fiddling with the automatic door opener, and an invasion is about to start. But I would not waste time on investigating it.

OK fair enough. You don’t have to form some elaborate justification for evil to exonerate God. You don’t have to come up with some possible explanation for why some evil is actually good or whatever. It is evil, don’t know why God allows it. Terrible.

When I hear about a psychopath kidnapping, raping and torturing a child, I do stop to think: “Hmmm maybe it is for the betterment of this child… maybe God in his infinite ‘wisdom’ allows this to happen, for some inscrutable purpose”. No! If something looks like evil, it is very, very, very probably evil. If there comes an explanation to show why this preconception is incorrect… fine and dandy. But the usual “MAYBE it is incorrect” simply does not cut it.

Right, neither do I. I think “Oh God please help that suffering child.” I try to find out if I can help. I hope God will punish the rapist proportionally. I hope the authorities will punish the criminal. Etc… I do not engage in excuse making for God.

Of course, I am pretty sure that you have the same reservation about a human perpetrator. We do not need 100%, absolute, Cartesian certainty… it is sufficient to be guided by common sense, while accepting that our assessment might be incorrect, and if it turns out to be incorrect, we must be ready to accept the correction.

Well, I think we need absolute certainty if we’re going to convict God. He is a different sort of being, allegedly right?

So, let’s see if I understand your position. When see a homeless person I have (at least) two choices. I can give him some money, or I can kick him in the stomach and throw him in the gutter. Do you mean that there is no difference in my two options? That no matter what I do, I support God’s “plan”?

Yes. The difference will be that you will either have done something good are a jerk. God is “above” these distinctions. When we will evil, we are evil. God though, is “above the law” in my opinion. If you help the homeless man, you are a good guy, and God is God. If you murder the homeless man, you are a bad guy, and God is God. Yes, this means that the word “good” is incoherent when applied to God. I’m not sure this is actually a problem. Not done thinking about it.

Freedom in and of itself is useless… or even dangerous. That is why we would not dream about giving total freedom to that “car” - as you pointed it out so correctly.

I don’t think we can definitively conclude that freedom is useless. It is certainly dangerous. There just isn’t enough information to make a final judgment about whether freedom in general is, on balance, “worth it” for humanity. A car has a telos “get from point A to point B” so excessive functionality makes little sense. We, however, do not appear to have a telos, or we are our own end. Therefore, who is to say what the minimum required functionality is for humanity? It seems impossible to know.

Your solid reason is (would be, or should be) the lack of contrarian explanation.

Not solid enough for me.

That is not much on a consolation for the victims. Don’t you remember that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure? And punishing the perps is not even a “cure”/

Not trying to console victims, just trying to form a coherent understanding. I think God will also restore the victims, in the end. Maybe this restoration will be so wonderful, it will totally wipe out the horrendous evil he allows to run amok on the earth. Not sure. No infallible statements here.

 

[vz71]

You said “Some suffering is God’s intent, and for our betterment. Some is brought on by our own decisions”. So, do those children suffer and die through their own decisions, God having them suffer even though they are too young to even be able to make decisions? Or do they die through our decisions, God making them suffer to pay for our decisions? Or do they suffer because it was always part of God’s plan to make those children suffer? Whichever it is, it’s unjust.

I see.
It appears you were unable to ascertain that decisions I make affect more than just myself.
That decisions you make go far beyond just yourself.
That decisions made by people around the world affect people that they may not even know.

One could look at this and realize how important it is that we try to make the best decisions possible. Else our thoughtlessness could result in tragedy elsewhere.

If you wish to lay God to blame for the consequences of someone else’s poor judgments, that is your call. However I suspect you, like many on this forum, know better.

God provided us free will. And it is an awesome responsibility.
Not only can we freely choose God, but we can also walk away from him for eternity.
But the effects of our decisions hit much closer then the judgment to come.
It also decides here and now if we contribute to the suffering of others or not.

I do not know how you arrived at the ideas you have about my beliefs, but suffice to say they appear misplaced.

But getting back to the free will philosophical examination of self driving cars.

No rational designer, constructor would allow “freedom” which would counteract the basic design aim of the creation.

I would think this is correct, but is not an argument against God. The question here is whether or not our collective free will chaotic decisions will have any affect whatsoever to the outcome God seeks.
I do not believe our decisions will stop God’s plans. Is it a question of us being too trivial to mean anything…no. It is a testament to the infinite wisdom and Love of our creator that his plan can be so resilient.

 

[inocente]

I see.
It appears you were unable to ascertain that decisions I make affect more than just myself.
That decisions you make go far beyond just yourself.
That decisions made by people around the world affect people that they may not even know.

You don’t appear to see that in your theology, God is profoundly unjust.

I would think this is correct, but is not an argument against God. The question here is whether or not our collective free will chaotic decisions will have any affect whatsoever to the outcome God seeks.
I do not believe our decisions will stop God’s plans. Is it a question of us being too trivial to mean anything…no. It is a testament to the infinite wisdom and Love of our creator that his plan can be so resilient.

I didn’t write what you quoted, and don’t agree with it either, but will comment that your theology sounds like extreme fatalism - there is nothing any of us can do to stop the suffering of those children who die once a minute every day, day in day out, there is nothing we can do to stop road deaths, nothing we can do to change one detail of God’s plan.

You say “I do not believe our decisions will stop God’s plans”, so free-will must be an illusion, our entire lives were mapped out for eternity, it’s written in the stars whether we go to heaven or not, since our decisions cannot affect God’s plans.

I’d suggest you sit down with your priest, but how do I know if it’s God’s plan that I suggest it, or God’s plan that I don’t? Never mind.

 

[You]

You don’t appear to see that in your theology, God is profoundly unjust.

I didn’t write what you quoted, and don’t agree with it either, but will comment that your theology sounds like extreme fatalism - there is nothing any of us can do to stop the suffering of those children who die once a minute every day, day in day out, there is nothing we can do to stop road deaths, nothing we can do to change one detail of God’s plan.

You say “I do not believe our decisions will stop God’s plans”, so free-will must be an illusion, our entire lives were mapped out for eternity, it’s written in the stars whether we go to heaven or not, since our decisions cannot affect God’s plans.

I’d suggest you sit down with your priest, but how do I know if it’s God’s plan that I suggest it, or God’s plan that I don’t? Never mind.

its just the same old question of knowing and directing. I know what you will do but I do not make you do it. You are free.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I do not engage in excuse making for God.

But you do… when you stipulate that we cannot make judgment calls about God, because he is different.

Well, I think we need absolute certainty if we’re going to convict God. He is a different sort of being, allegedly right?

I cannot agree. Being “different” does not excuse the lack of helping.

God though, is “above the law” in my opinion.

Then we cannot have a coherent conversation.

Yes, this means that the word “good” is incoherent when applied to God. I’m not sure this is actually a problem. Not done thinking about it.

If there is no way to make a judgment call about God, “good” or “evil”, then there is no ground for a conversation.

I don’t think we can definitively conclude that freedom is useless. It is certainly dangerous. There just isn’t enough information to make a final judgment about whether freedom in general is, on balance, “worth it” for humanity.

As far as the victims are concerned, there is nothing “useful” about the freedom which allows the psychopaths to torture them.

Not solid enough for me.

Obviously we are different.

Not trying to console victims, just trying to form a coherent understanding. I think God will also restore the victims, in the end. Maybe this restoration will be so wonderful, it will totally wipe out the horrendous evil he allows to run amok on the earth.

Again, the principle is incorrect. If a father beats his child to a bloody pulp, and then gives him a lollypop, that does not “erase” the beating. The past is unchangeable. Wiping out the memory does not “undo” the prior injustice.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

its just the same old question of knowing and directing. I know what you will do but I do not make you do it. You are free.

This leads to another logical problem. If you know that something evil will be committed, AND you have the power to prevent it AND you fail to act, then you are exactly is guilty as the actual perpetrator.

The only excuse for non-interference would be the LACK of knowledge. But that excuse is unavailable for God.

 

[You]

This leads to another logical problem. If you know that something evil will be committed, AND you have the power to prevent it AND you fail to act, then you are exactly is guilty as the actual perpetrator.

The only excuse for non-interference would be the LACK of knowledge. But that excuse is unavailable for God.

That depends on perspective. Your perspective, lets imagine, is limited to the end of your life. His perspective never ends.

For him a person will live for billions and billions of years and death is the entrance to life in abundance.

From his perspective every human he creates is of the utmost importance and every black sheep criminal can be rescued eventually and brought back to live life for billions and billions of years with all the victims of life.

Life is not fair, it is a struggle, a fight. The fair and the just have a responsibility. Its a matter of perspective.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

That depends on perspective.

No it does not. Each individual act must be evaluated on its own merit. After all it is a catholic teaching that the end does not justify the means. If you beat your child to a bloody pulp, it will stay an evil act, even if you give him a lollipop afterwards.

 

[You]

No it does not. Each individual act must be evaluated on its own merit. After all it is a catholic teaching that the end does not justify the means. If you beat your child to a bloody pulp, it will stay an evil act, even if you give him a lollipop afterwards.

I didn’t say it would not remain an evil act.
The catholic teaching, as I understand it, regarding evil etc. in the world, is that if he were to remove it somehow the wheat would be lost/damaged along with the chaff. So the policy is to wait.

From his perspective this is right because more will be saved. From your perspective you probably could not understand it as life is short, there is no plan, nothing happens afterwards, so you desire results right now. Your perspective is short.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The catholic teaching, as I understand it, regarding evil etc. in the world, is that if he were to remove it somehow the wheat would be lost/damaged along with the chaff.

(Emphasis mine) There is absolutely no evidence for this. As such it goes to the same place as all the other baseless, unsubstantiated claims go.

If you would actually live according this principle, you would not want to interfere at all, no matter how obvious it looks like that the interference “weeds out” some evil. After all, it “might” be possible (according to your principle) that the interference makes the situation worse - for some unknowable reason. But no one lives according this concept - most certainly the church does not. The catholic church maintains hospitals to help those ones in need. It participates in charitable activities. So, the acts, which speak much louder than the words affirm that getting rid of “evil” is a desirable activity - according to the catholic church.

 

[You]

(Emphasis mine) There is absolutely no evidence for this. As such it goes to the same place as all the other baseless, unsubstantiated claims go.

If you would actually live according this principle, you would not want to interfere at all, no matter how obvious it looks like that the interference “weeds out” some evil. After all, it “might” be possible (according to your principle) that the interference makes the situation worse - for some unknowable reason. But no one lives according this concept - most certainly the church does not. The catholic church maintains hospitals to help those ones in need. It participates in charitable activities. So, the acts, which speak much louder than the words affirm that getting rid of “evil” is a desirable activity - according to the catholic church.

I am not talking about myself or of the church. We act. I am telling you why him up there does not get rid of all evil on earth now, immediately.

And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

But you do… when you stipulate that we cannot make judgment calls about God, because he is different.

I cannot agree. Being “different” does not excuse the lack of helping.

Then we cannot have a coherent conversation.

If there is no way to make a judgment call about God, “good” or “evil”, then there is no ground for a conversation.

As far as the victims are concerned, there is nothing “useful” about the freedom which allows the psychopaths to torture them.

Obviously we are different.

Again, the principle is incorrect. If a father beats his child to a bloody pulp, and then gives him a lollypop, that does not “erase” the beating. The past is unchangeable. Wiping out the memory does not “undo” the prior injustice.

It isn’t that I’m trying to make excuses for God’s bad behavior, or trying to rationalize evil by saying that it might not really be so bad, but rather that we simply don’t have enough evidence to indict God. Your observation that this means we can’t have a coherent conversation is correct. This is why I don’t proselytize or try to get people to believe the same things that I believe. I’m not sure that the understanding of God that each person has is communicable, and I also suspect that discussions of God’s nature really are incoherent. When the Bible says “God is good because…” I take it to mean “I like what I think God has done for me” NOT “God is actually ‘good’ in the way we call sunlight and puppies ‘good.’” Does this mean we should go around torturing people because, hey who knows, it might be “good?” No, because we can judge ourselves and each other sufficiently, even without all the facts, as you have observed. What I don’t think we can do is judge God in that same way, even with tons of facts. The knowledge gap is just too vast.

Re: lollipops and vicious beatings. Obviously, lollipops don’t make up for beatings! The problem is that the cure is disproportionate.

Honestly, I don’t believe there is a coherent answer to the problem of evil. Every solution has its problems and logical difficulties. I suppose I live in hope that one day God will give an accountant for this mess of a world, as well as fix it. In the meantime it is up to us to do what we can to repair our corners of the world to the best of our abilities. If believing in God seems stupid and irrational to you, and doesn’t encourage you or inspire you, then forget about it. Form and follow your own conception of the good and be open to new evidence, should it present itself.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I am not talking about myself or of the church. We act. I am telling you why him up there does not get rid of all evil on earth now, immediately.

So now you deny God’s omnipotence. Getting worse and worse.

No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it.

Any half-competent farmer knows how to get rid of the weed, and keep the wheat… There is no explanation for the so-called “problem of evil”, there never was and never will be. It is the perennial thorn in the side of Christianity.

Time to stop this derail attempt. Better to get back to the actual topic.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Re: lollipops and vicious beatings. Obviously, lollipops don’t make up for beatings! The problem is that the cure is disproportionate.

I don’t accept that there is a proportionate “cure”… except prevention. Once the deed is done, it cannot be undone.

Form and follow your own conception of the good and be open to new evidence, should it present itself.

That is exactly what I am doing. Best wishes to you.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

…I suppose I live in hope that one day God will give an accountant for this mess of a world, as well as fix it.

LOL, although we can always use more accountants, I doubt even the best of them can solve this problem!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I don’t accept that there is a proportionate “cure”… except prevention. Once the deed is done, it cannot be undone.

That is exactly what I am doing. Best wishes to you.

Same of course. It is what we are all doing, whether we acknowledge it or not, in my opinion. I’ve never met someone who gets up in the morning and says “Now, how can I harm others and benefit myself the most today? How can I be optimally evil this fine day?” I think that, in itself, is a little glimmer of hope for humanity. We may screw things up, but I don’t think very many people want to.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Same of course. It is what we are all doing, whether we acknowledge it or not, in my opinion. I’ve never met someone who gets up in the morning and says “Now, how can I harm others and benefit myself the most today? How can I be optimally evil this fine day?” I think that, in itself, is a little glimmer of hope for humanity. We may screw things up, but I don’t think very many people want to.

Of course you never met anyone like that. Nor have I. There are only very few people in that category. Unfortunately their number is not zero. And that leads to the conclusion that everyone else would be better off if such people would not exist.

The funny thing is that several times I presented a poll (on several boards) asking if people would endorse the removal of such psychopaths, if that would be possible. I was amazed that people always voted AGAINST the (possible, theoretical) removal of such psychopaths. Obviously, they always “imagined” that the upcoming victims were not themselves or their own beloved ones… rather some faceless people. Let others bear the burden of “free will”. I am sure that they would quickly change their mind if their own beloved children or grandchildren would be the targets…

 

[You]

So now you deny God’s omnipotence. Getting worse and worse.

Any half-competent farmer knows how to get rid of the weed, and keep the wheat… There is no explanation for the so-called “problem of evil”, there never was and never will be. It is the perennial thorn in the side of Christianity.

Time to stop this derail attempt. Better to get back to the actual topic.

If he got rid of the cockle right now, immediately, then you and I might be destroyed. But if he waits and suffers us for a while we might be made into wheat.