Is this a valid argument?

[Calepiaro]

P1) A computer simulation can’t have any uncontrollable variables.

P2) Moral responsibility needs personal control over your actions.

P3) Taking person control away from the simulation means adding yourself as an uncontrollable variable into the computer simulation.

C) Moral responsibility within a computer simulation cannot exist.

At a first glance, it was hard to understand what you mean with each statement, but I think I managed to understand and I do agree.

P1): This is true. If there is something a computer can't do that is pure randomness. Someone said that there are random functions in specific languages. It is true, some higher languages do indeed have so-called "random functions", but they are far from random! They are more of a simulation of randomness. True randomness can be achieved only through freedom and a computer is far from free.

P2): I agree again! For a man to be responsible for anything he must be free to do otherwise, he must have control to decide what to do. How could a man that lacks control over himself be accused of bad or good, of moral or immoral? He could not.

P3): I think there is something wrong with this phrase, but if you mean that one's control over himself would be impossible in a simulation for that it adds an "uncontrollable variable", then I agree the third time. If someone is free to control himself, then his behaviour is unpredictable, it can be rational or irrational, virtuous or not, and even if it is rational, we still could not precisely know what one is going to do.

Therefore I believe that your argument is valid, of course, you should explain why P1, P2, and P3 are true, and try to make them as easy to understand as possible.

[Pattern-chaser]

The moral model here is that the programmer holds the program responsible for the harm and uses the appropriate method to correct it.

Whatever else is the case, I can assure you that the programmer knows that the program is not "responsible" for anything at all. If there is responsibility, it belongs with humans, not with a collection of pre-calculated decisions. Decisions pre-calculated by humans, not by 'the program'.

[Pattern-chaser]

P1. Computers can simulate lack of control with the random number function.

This topic is an odd mish-mash to start with, but that is no excuse to trot out half-truths and misunderstandings about programming. The above is a good example of the latter.

[Marvin_Edwards]

The moral model here is that the programmer holds the program responsible for the harm and uses the appropriate method to correct it.

Whatever else is the case, I can assure you that the programmer knows that the program is not "responsible" for anything at all. If there is responsibility, it belongs with humans, not with a collection of pre-calculated decisions. Decisions pre-calculated by humans, not by 'the program'.

The function of "holding responsible" is to identify the cause and take steps to correct it.

[Sculptor1]

P1. Computers can simulate lack of control with the random number function.

This topic is an odd mish-mash to start with, but that is no excuse to trot out half-truths and misunderstandings about programming. The above is a good example of the latter.

What I said is factual.
WTF are you talking about?

[Sculptor1]

Whatever else is the case, I can assure you that the programmer knows that the program is not "responsible" for anything at all. If there is responsibility, it belongs with humans, not with a collection of pre-calculated decisions. Decisions pre-calculated by humans, not by 'the program'.

The function of "holding responsible" is to identify the cause and take steps to correct it.

An inanimate thing cannot be responsible in any meaningful way, though many guilty humans often try to divert attention to their own failings by blaming machines.

[Marvin_Edwards]

The function of "holding responsible" is to identify the cause and take steps to correct it.

An inanimate thing cannot be responsible in any meaningful way, though many guilty humans often try to divert attention to their own failings by blaming machines.

Responsibility is not a property of an object. It is a quality we assign to the object that caused the problem.

[Sculptor1]

An inanimate thing cannot be responsible in any meaningful way, though many guilty humans often try to divert attention to their own failings by blaming machines.

Responsibility is not a property of an object. It is a quality we assign to the object that caused the problem.

Not sure why you are saying this.

[Pattern-chaser]

P1. Computers can simulate lack of control with the random number function.

This topic is an odd mish-mash to start with, but that is no excuse to trot out half-truths and misunderstandings about programming. The above is a good example of the latter.

What I said is factual.
WTF are you talking about?

Random numbers, in programming, are a sort-of equivalent of truth to philosophers. What appears simple at first is actually complex, deep and difficult. What you said is not factual; random numbers are not used as you think they are. If you want to start an in-depth topic about the generation and use of random numbers, I will be pleased to discuss it with you, and to explain whatever needs explaining. But this is not the place.

[Sculptor1]

P1. Computers can simulate lack of control with the random number function.

This topic is an odd mish-mash to start with, but that is no excuse to trot out half-truths and misunderstandings about programming. The above is a good example of the latter.

What I said is factual.
WTF are you talking about?

Random numbers, in programming, are a sort-of equivalent of truth to philosophers. What appears simple at first is actually complex, deep and difficult. What you said is not factual; random numbers are not used as you think they are. If you want to start an in-depth topic about the generation and use of random numbers, I will be pleased to discuss it with you, and to explain whatever needs explaining. But this is not the place.

I know exactly how RNGs select numbers.
They are no more than long lists, since no number can every be "truly" random. You can seed them with today's date and time or any other arbitrary number. This ensures a different playing field for each game play.
The point is that as far as the programmer or user is concerned RNGs make the scenario unpredictable. Lack of control is thus simulated.

[Pattern-chaser]

Random numbers, in programming, are a sort-of equivalent of truth to philosophers. What appears simple at first is actually complex, deep and difficult. What you said is not factual; random numbers are not used as you think they are. If you want to start an in-depth topic about the generation and use of random numbers, I will be pleased to discuss it with you, and to explain whatever needs explaining. But this is not the place.

I know exactly how RNGs select numbers.

True RNGs are few and far between, but perfectly possible with some specialised hardware. What you are referring to are Pseudo-Random Number Generators (PRNGs).

They are no more than long lists...

This is a simplistic description of the simplest sort of PRNG. The sort you see in an introductory text for students. Real-world applications usually need rather more.

You can seed them with today's date and time or any other arbitrary number. This ensures a different playing field for each game play.
The point is that as far as the programmer or user is concerned RNGs make the scenario unpredictable. Lack of control is thus simulated.

You describe a very simple application (gaming) where the programmer needs to make the game, and the course through it that the player takes, is not too predicable. It is not "lack of control" that is "simulated", but (as you observe) only that prediction of game operation is made more difficult for the user. Lack of control means a crashed program. No programmer would even think about simulating such a circumstance.

As a philosopher, I am a self-taught hobbyist, with no formal training whatsoever. I do it for fun. But when it comes to software design, I earned the title Master Craftsman over 40 years of learning and practicing my art. I am far from the only Master, and very far from the most eminent Master, but that status is mine, because I earned it. I really do know what I'm talking about. Now kindly shut up about this subject, of which you know little. There's a man called Penrose who would surely gain from your guidance in Mathematics?

[Sculptor1]

Random numbers, in programming, are a sort-of equivalent of truth to philosophers. What appears simple at first is actually complex, deep and difficult. What you said is not factual; random numbers are not used as you think they are. If you want to start an in-depth topic about the generation and use of random numbers, I will be pleased to discuss it with you, and to explain whatever needs explaining. But this is not the place.

I know exactly how RNGs select numbers.

True RNGs are few and far between, but perfectly possible with some specialised hardware. What you are referring to are Pseudo-Random Number Generators (PRNGs).

They are no more than long lists...

This is a simplistic description of the simplest sort of PRNG. The sort you see in an introductory text for students. Real-world applications usually need rather more.

You can seed them with today's date and time or any other arbitrary number. This ensures a different playing field for each game play.
The point is that as far as the programmer or user is concerned RNGs make the scenario unpredictable. Lack of control is thus simulated.

You describe a very simple application (gaming) where the programmer needs to make the game, and the course through it that the player takes, is not too predicable. It is not "lack of control" that is "simulated", but (as you observe) only that prediction of game operation is made more difficult for the user. Lack of control means a crashed program. No programmer would even think about simulating such a circumstance.

As a philosopher, I am a self-taught hobbyist, with no formal training whatsoever. I do it for fun. But when it comes to software design, I earned the title Master Craftsman over 40 years of learning and practicing my art. I am far from the only Master, and very far from the most eminent Master, but that status is mine, because I earned it. I really do know what I'm talking about. Now kindly shut up about this subject, of which you know little. There's a man called Penrose who would surely gain from your guidance in Mathematics?

Non of this is remotely relevant to the point I made originally