Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!seismo!nbires!hao!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor
From: taylor@hplabsc.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.comp-soc
Subject: Re: The Neutrality of Technology
Message-ID: <482@hplabsc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 19-Jul-86 14:11:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: hplabsc.482
Posted: Sat Jul 19 14:11:31 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Jul-86 06:41:34 EDT
Reply-To: seismo!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
Lines: 18
Approved: taylor@hplabs
Reference: <445@hplabsc.UUCP>


This article is from seismo!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
 and was received on Sat Jul 19 05:01:44 1986
 

I am inclined to say that "good" and "bad" are applicable to an object
whenever it acts on its own.  If a bulldozer spontaneously starts up and
levels half of Manhatten, the bulldozer is itself bad.  Of course, it does
no good to "blame" or "punish" it; it has no understanding.

A sentient computer [program], on the other hand, does have such an
understanding, and it may well be appropriate to treat it much as one treats
a human criminal if it behaves badly.  I'm not going to get into whether to
blame the program or the machine -- this is a more appropriate topic for
philosophy.  However, blaming the computer does not let the programmers off
the hook: responsibility is infinitely divisible without diminuation.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108