Here you've separated the 'creator' from the 'moral agent' (let's call that moral agent: society) and unintentionally skewed things. So let's unskew things by supposing society to have created a fully sentient android..
Supposing for a moment that this android was promised that certain consequences would follow his own free decisions. Would society have a moral right to impose due consequences attaching to the androids free decisions? Including the inflicting of punishment and removal of life?
This is a different argument that doesn't require worrying about androids or property rights. You might as well ask does society have the right to impose penalties on its members. The answer is yes.
The question is, what is the limit of those penalties that society can morally (from our point of view) go to. I suggest complaining about society would not be a justifiable reason to enact a death penalty - and threatening to kill potentially hundreds of thousands and actually killing tens of thousands in retaliation of that 'crime' is an immoral act.
We'll have seen by now whether you'll have permitted your androids to decide to wreak havoc on earth or whether you'll feel morally authorised to ..er..curb their behaviour.
Self defence is an entirely different kettle of fish. If they were 'wreaking havoc' on a planet that was in a different galaxy and they presented no threat to us in any way...and by 'wreaking havoc' that means 'complaining when 200 of them were executed by us for inciting a rebellion against our rule which had seen them spend years upon years on a desolate rock face with nothing but hope of a promise fulfilled'.
Fair enough. But I was enquiring into how you suppose someone elses property: supplied and sustained by them to you - under condition, is a right of yours? If I may, you sound like a tenent who quits paying the rent compiaining about your landlords taking you to court to seek your eviction.
I don't think my life is someone else's property. To quote Locke: " every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his".
Morality devolved from God - which states murder wrong cannot be something God is fine with??
Is that a question?
I was just saying that since there are no negative side effects of murder - why does God want us not to do it?
What's of interest, like I say, is whether we can align what we (by consensus) think is good-in-principle with what God thinks good
Indeed - and I'm basically arguing that we can't.
A mother does not permit her son to become a junkie.
She does permit as soon as she cuts loose the apron strings
I'd hardly call that permission. It is more a case of being resigned to the fact. You brought this permission up in a 'God gives us life and then takes it away' context. A mother does not have this kind of control over her children: a point I think you were trying to make in your ownership argument.
So when one person is murdered by another, God isn't willing it actively (necessarily) but he permits the murderer his own wills expression.
According to you, murder has no negative consequences - possibly has some positive consequences - and it does not go against God's will. Yes?
One such area is proprietry and I think the sense we have instilled in us regarding that area works well enough when considering God, the owner and us (arguably excluding our will but including our earthly life), the possession.
Right - but according to our understanding of property rights, there limits to what we are allowed to do with our own property. Yes?
Hopefully you'll have explained further on where this right to life comes from.
It comes from us. We mutually agree each of us has a right to life. Anything you do with your property needs to respect other people's right to life. That is what we think is good. When you do something with your property that causes loss of life, on the whole we think that bad. We agree there are exceptions. Being angry at someone for complaining about a series of executions does not qualify as an exception in our moral sphere.
God evicting a tenent who won't pay the due rent invokes proprietry rights you might agree with. As would his removing a person from a building which is about to fall down.
I understand. And what I am saying is that this view is not in accord with our morality. We don't see people as merely 'hiring' their life and that it can be taken away for not paying 'rent'. If Hitler claimed that jewish physical bodies owed their existence to the labour of the German folk and he was evicting the jews from their bodies...I'd still regard him killing them all as immoral - even if he was right.
If God's attitude is that I am merely renting this body at his pleasure - then I consider God to have an immoral position. If he acts as if this was true, I'd regard God's disregard for human life as immoral.
Your argument seems to require that the state of being biologically alive has no value and that taking that state away from somebody is not depriving them of something. Either that, or you want to argue that being deprived of that value is suitable punishment for the crimes they committed. I disagree with that.
™ Version 4.2
