Quote:
Originally Posted by 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, |
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.