Originally posted by rwingett The original prototype was given the choice of freewill (allegedly). The designer knew beforehand all the choices the prototype would make, including the one choice he didn't want it to make. The designer went ahead with that particular design anyway. Therefore the designer is liable for all damages.
How is the designer liable? The product was flawless, but chose the defect of its own free will.
Whether or not the designer knew in advance that the product would choose poorly has no bearing on the accountability of the product.
The product was fully responsible for its own choice. In this case blaming the designer is an act of denial by the product.
Originally posted by josephw The manufacturer isn't the one on trial. The product, which is a replica of the creator of the product, with the same attribute of volition, is accountable for his own choices and subsequently on trial for failure to follow parameters of use.
Basically we have to break with the conventions of product liability law in order to exempt the manufacturer from liability. This is why the parent/child relationship is a much better metaphor, from the standpoint of the faithful. Parents bear some legal liability for the actions of their children, but this liability diminishes as the child reaches legal adulthood.
SO the parent/child liability legal relationship is a better metaphor/analogy than the manufacturer/product relationship, in matching how Western religion treats the matter. It is just the other way around, from the atheist POV.
It's just another way to reframe the free will/accountability argument.
Originally posted by FMF Do you think this "recall" metaphor/analogy is pretty good or pretty lame?
I think it's an amusing take on the subject which is probably well received by certain Christians. How it is scripturally unsound and philosophically open to challenge.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem 100% of the product is flawed, by the designer's own admission.
If any other manufacturer did this, they'd soon be out of business.
A better twist in the accounts would be that the product was perfect but the self replication process sabotaged by a disgruntled ex employee who gained entry through use of a cunning disguise.
Biblical fundamentalists typically say that the problems and pains nonhuman animals suffer today (tumors, parasites, etc) are also the result of human sin. It has never been clear to me why this was a fair thing for God to do to those creatures. Or is it that He wanted to spare them, but falls short of the cleverness He would have needed to keep nonhumans from damage?
Removed
Joined
08 Dec '04
Moves
100919
11 Jan '15 22:00
Originally posted by divegeester A better twist in the accounts would be that the product was perfect but the self replication process sabotaged by a disgruntled ex employee who gained entry through use of a cunning disguise.
I like your answer best. I think the manufacturer knew the risk of a disgruntled ex employee tampering with his product and weighed the gains and losses.
He concluded that the gains were worth it.
Originally posted by divegeester A better twist in the accounts would be that the product was perfect but the self replication process sabotaged by a disgruntled ex employee who gained entry through use of a cunning disguise.
Then the blame rightfully goes to the saboteur and not the product itself.
I do. And I know any analogy will crack under torture, which isn't what I'm trying to do. I am trying to understand if it has even a limited usefulness.
Removed
Joined
08 Dec '04
Moves
100919
11 Jan '15 23:41
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem Then the blame rightfully goes to the saboteur and not the product itself.
Originally posted by divegeester A better twist in the accounts would be that the product was perfect but the self replication process sabotaged by a disgruntled ex employee who gained entry through use of a cunning disguise.
Originally posted by rwingett [b]"The Manufacturer, who is neither liable nor at fault for this defect..."
Uh...I beg to differ. The Manufacturer knew beforehand that his design was defective. He knew that it would have to be recalled. But he built it to those specifications anyway. The product behaved exactly as it was designed to. Therefore the manufacturer is directly responsible and liable for ALL damages done.[/b]
Au contraire.
All actions for Remedy have been described. It is the responsibility of the humans to make such remedy and repair as has been delineated in the recall notice. They alone are responsible for any damages incurred as a result of not following the remedial actions put forth by the Manufacturer.
Recall Notice
11 Jan '15 17:36
Back to Top