Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.cognitive
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news4.ner.bbnplanet.net!news3.near.net!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Zeleny on predictability (was FIRST order?)
Message-ID: <jqbDCKoDn.14n@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3v897g$13fv@locutus.rchland.ibm.com> <DCKDAu.8uq@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 08:46:35 GMT
Lines: 68
Sender: jqb@netcom22.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:32029 comp.ai.philosophy:31114 sci.logic:13336 sci.cognitive:8719

In article <DCKDAu.8uq@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com>,
David E. Weldon, Ph.D.  <David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM> wrote:
>Today, this whole notion is under attack and the consequences are only
>beginning to be felt.  Consider the woman who bought a cup of coffee at
>McDonald's, put it between her legs and subsequently burned herself badly.  A
>jury awarded her $15 Million on the basis of the argument that McDonald's did
>not tell her the coffee was very hot, so it was their fault she was
>burned....i.e., the deterministic cause of her burn was the failure of
>McDonald's, and it was not her responsibility to take proper precautions (she
>did not set the coffee between her legs as an act of free will).

Suppose that I were to buy some shampoo that said on the label "avoid getting
in eyes".  If I were use it carelessly and get some in my eyes, surely I would
be responsible for the ensuing discomfort, irritation, etc.  But suppose that
the shampoo contained a substance that could instantly blind one?  Would I be
*fully* responsible for *that*?  Within civil law, there is a notion of
contributory negligence, and I would not be entitled to the same amount as if
I had been a totally innocent party, but certainly the manufacturers of the
shampoo *also* bear responsibility for *their* actions, which is a point
repeatedly overlooked when discussing these anecdotes.

In the case of McDonalds, the jury found that the MD management had received
numerous complaints about their scalding hot undrinkable coffee that had
caused repeated serious injury, and yet refused to act *responsibly*.  As a
result, this elderly woman received life-threatening third degree burns *out
of proportion* to the ill-judgement that she exercised in her placement of the
coffee.  The laws and the jury's verdict are intended to *enforce* responsible
behavior.  Demanding responsibility only from the most visible person in a
case is a shallow and highly biased reading of the concept.  Such biases are
of course reenforced where possible by what means are possible by those who
might gain from them.

>Or, two kids in California can claim that the reason they wasted their parents
>was because they feared drastic reprisals if they didn't.  Thus, it was their
>parents fault because the kids behaviour was fully determined by the treatment
>they received from their parents.  Furthermore, because of the environment
>they lived in, their act was fore-ordained, they could not have chosen another
>path.  That a sufficient number of the Jury accepted this argument to result
>in a mistrial (hung jury), should cause us all to be greatly alarmed regarding
>the future of our civilization.

This is again a factual misreading.  Finding the brothers not responsible was
not an option given to or considered by the jury.  They only had the option of
finding that the brothers *mistakenly, irrationally* believed their lives to
be in danger.  The introduction of abuse testimony was not for the purpose
showing that the brothers had been psychologically damaged, but rather for the
purpose of showing what basis there might have been for this belief.  Some of
the jurors had a *reasonable doubt* concerning the prosecution's claim that
the brothers had no such irrational belief, and thus they were required, by
law, to find for a charge less than first degree murder.  Even such a lesser
charge, resulting from an irrational belief, holds the defendants responsible
both for the act and for the irrationality of their beliefs.

>But, of course, one can argue that, if we are
>going to "go down the tubes," this is fully determined as well, so why worry
>about it....right!

Yes, one can trivialize and ignore the details concerning concepts as well as
events.  It isn't hard to find evidence for one's pet views about the state of
the world if one selects the right filters.

Anyway, this is pretty far off topic, but questions about whether robots are
suitable entities to be held ethically accountable have been raised here, and
perhaps some insight can be gained from the fact that many feel that actions
taken in the pursuit of "free enterprise" carry no such ethical burden.
-- 
<J Q B>

