11 Jan 15
Originally posted by rwingettHow is the designer liable? The product was flawless, but chose the defect of its own free will.
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.
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.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
11 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwBasically 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.
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.
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.
Ho hum.
11 Jan 15
Originally posted by josephw100% of the product is flawed, by the designer's own admission.
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.
If any other manufacturer did this, they'd soon be out of business.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121323
11 Jan 15
Originally posted by FMFI 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.
Do you think this "recall" metaphor/analogy is pretty good or pretty lame?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121323
11 Jan 15
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemA 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.
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.
11 Jan 15
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?
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
11 Jan 15
Originally posted by divegeesterI 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.
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.
He concluded that the gains were worth it.
11 Jan 15
Originally posted by divegeesterThen the blame rightfully goes to the saboteur and not the product itself.
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.
12 Jan 15
Originally posted by rwingettAu contraire.
[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]
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.