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.Kaz_1983 wrote: ↑September 13th, 2020, 10:04 amP1) 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.
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.