Recall Notice

Originally posted by JS357
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 adult ...[text shortened]... heist POV.

It's just another way to reframe the free will/accountability argument.

Ho hum.

When a child is disobedient what does a parent do? They hold the child accountable.

The product/child is 100% responsible for his/her actions. The parent is held responsible for a child's actions when and if it can be proven that the parent acted irresponsibly by abuse or neglect.

Besides, there is no comparison between purely human involvement and that of an omniscient creator. The idea that the creator is capable of error is of human origin. Error and fault originates with the man.

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]

We are not cars rwingett.

Love demands the choice to be recalled. Without such choice, we would be just a stupid car.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
So you're saying the product [humanity] is [b]not to blame for the S.I.N. defect? 😀[/b]

Yes and no. The original product made a choice and is now damaged. So the blame really goes to both, the product and the disgruntled ex-employee.
Every product produced since then is inherently damaged as well.

Originally posted by checkbaiter

The Manufacturer, who is neither liable nor at
fault for this defect

How is the "Manufacturer" not at fault? If I knew that cookies made by my company resulted "depression" "fearfulness", eternal damnation, etc., am I not liable because I offer the victims health insurance? Sure, it wasn't my fault that some worker messed up the machine that makes cookies, but letting it continue though I was all-knowing about this, aren't I able to get sued for damages, or even face criminal charges?

Stupid metaphor.

Originally posted by vivify
How is the "Manufacturer" not at fault? If I knew that cookies made by my company resulted "depression" "fearfulness", eternal damnation, etc., am I not liable because I offer the victims health insurance? Sure, it wasn't my fault that some worker messed up the machine that makes cookies, but letting it continue though I was all-knowing about this, aren't I able to get sued for damages, or even face criminal charges?

Stupid metaphor.

But the manufacturer is not letting it continue, in the sense of providing the remedy. If I had a recall and the customer refused the repair, how am I liable?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
The original product made a choice

Then again, sometimes the analogy-maker wrecks his own analogy... 🙂

Originally posted by josephw
Whether or not the designer knew in advance that the product would choose poorly has no bearing on the accountability of the product.

I believe it does. Accountability in a fully deterministic world is really hard to place on anything other than the 'first cause'.
It also does have bearing on the accountability of the creator. Suppose I create a computer program that is capable of firing nuclear missiles at innocent people. Suppose the computer programs missile firing sequence is triggered by something else other than myself. But I know in advance that it will be triggered. Can I claim no responsibility as I was not involved in triggering the sequence?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe it does. Accountability in a fully deterministic world is really hard to place on anything other than the 'first cause'.
It also does have bearing on the accountability of the creator. Suppose I create a computer program that is capable of firing nuclear missiles at innocent people. Suppose the computer programs missile firing sequence is trigg ...[text shortened]... ll be triggered. Can I claim no responsibility as I was not involved in triggering the sequence?

Yes - it's negligence when you know your actions have created a potential grave hazard, yet you take no action to mitigate that hazard.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
But the manufacturer is not letting it continue, in the sense of providing the remedy. If I had a recall and the customer refused the repair, how am I liable?

Who is the customer?

It is the Creator.
He made Man for his own selfish reasons.

Mankind is the product.
A product foreseen by the onmniscient god.

Originally posted by josephw
When a child is disobedient what does a parent do? They hold the child accountable.

The product/child is 100% responsible for his/her actions. The parent is held responsible for a child's actions when and if it can be proven that the parent acted irresponsibly by abuse or neglect.

Why is it Christian fundies are such bad parents?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
But the manufacturer is not letting it continue, in the sense of providing the remedy. If I had a recall and the customer refused the repair, how am I liable?

Your god, the "Manufacturer", could've stopped the "defect" at Adam and Eve. Instead, he let it continue, and it's resulted in countless amounts of terrible, needless suffering (labor pains, torture, sickness, heartache, etc.)

Because the manufacturer let the defect continue, rather than stopping it at Adam and Eve, your "Manufacturer" is at fault.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe it does. Accountability in a fully deterministic world is really hard to place on anything other than the 'first cause'.
It also does have bearing on the accountability of the creator. Suppose I create a computer program that is capable of firing nuclear missiles at innocent people. Suppose the computer programs missile firing sequence is trigg ...[text shortened]... ll be triggered. Can I claim no responsibility as I was not involved in triggering the sequence?

"Can I claim no responsibility as I was not involved in triggering the sequence?"

You wrote a faulty program. You're liable. You can't make the excuse that "something else" caused the problem.

The analogy used assumes that the manufacturer/designer of the unit in question is omniscient and incapable of creating a faulty product. The analogy also assumes that the product has volition and made a poor choice resulting in a defect which rendered the unit defunked. The analogy then presupposes that the manufacturer provided full restoration free of charge.

Unfortunately most of the units choose to remain defective, which ultimately results in total failure and then discontinuation.

Originally posted by vivify
Your god, the "Manufacturer", could've stopped the "defect" at Adam and Eve. Instead, he let it continue, and it's resulted in countless amounts of terrible, needless suffering (labor pains, torture, sickness, heartache, etc.)

Because the manufacturer let the defect continue, rather than stopping it at Adam and Eve, your "Manufacturer" is at fault.

"Your god, the "Manufacturer", could've stopped the "defect" at Adam and Eve."

Not so. If the manufacturer had "stopped the defect" it would have constituted a violation of the free will with which the product was designed. The product had the choice of remaining "defect free", but instead chose to take that which was not his to take, like a thief, against the clear warning by the manufacturer that such action would result in a fatal defect.

The product is fully accountable for the defect, and the consequences for rejecting the repair the manufacturer supplied free of charge.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Your god, the "Manufacturer", could've stopped the "defect" at Adam and Eve."

Not so. If the manufacturer had "stopped the defect" it would have constituted a violation of the free will with which the product was designed. The product had the choice of remaining "defect free", but instead chose to take that which was not his to take, like a thief, ...[text shortened]... defect, and the consequences for rejecting the repair the manufacturer supplied free of charge.[/b]

*yawn.

A) Your god could've just put some barrier around the tree in the Garden. No sin, no violation of free will.

B) Your god could've stopped Adam and Eve from having the ability to reproduce. They could bang away all they like, no violation of free will, no uncountable amount of needless suffering.

C) Your god could've stopped the snake from telling Adam and Eve about the fruit.

D) Your God didn't have to make Adam and Eve, knowing so much suffering would result. Or at the very least, didn't have to make Eve who convinced Adam to eat the fruit.

E) Your god could've simply killed Adam and Eve and started over. Why not, he killed most of the human race with a flood.

F) Add your own. There's an endless number of things your god could've done to stop the "defect" at Adam and Eve. After, he's all-knowing and all-powerful, right? So why didn't he come up with a way to stop the unfathomable amount suffering that resulted?

God is completely the one to blame.

Originally posted by josephw
You wrote a faulty program.

No, I didn't. I never once said the program was faulty in any way.

You're liable. You can't make the excuse that "something else" caused the problem.
Seems like you agree that God is liable.

The analogy used assumes that the manufacturer/designer of the unit in question is omniscient and incapable of creating a faulty product.
My analogy only states that the designer knows the consequences of creating the product.

The analogy then presupposes that the manufacturer provided full restoration free of charge. Unfortunately most of the units choose to remain defective, which ultimately results in total failure and then discontinuation.
Sounds to me like the units decided that 'free of charge' wasn't really as free as it was made out to be. Why is that? Were they not privy to some information regarding this replacement offer, or was the offer not really free?
Would you refuse a free offer to replace a defective item? Do you know any reason why someone else might do so?