The way I see it, we are blaming the ‘intelligence’ process for the things that this process had caused or had the power to prevent, and we aren’t blaming it for other things where it was powerless. A bad outcome (like obesity) implies character flaw if less flawed character would not end up with this outcome. And it is perfectly consistent with the notion that the process itself had been shaped by things outside it’s control. A bad AI is a bad AI even though it’s programmer’s fault; a badly designed bridge is a bad bridge even though it is architect’s fault as well; more than one person can be equally to blame for something.
If someone is put into position where they truly believe they will get away with murder, gaining $1000, and if they murder someone, that is indicative of the character flaw, even though such conditions are extremely rare and this character flaw might well be relatively common.
Ohh, and something else: If two people’s actions result in murder so that the murder could of only occured if (person 1 is a nasty murderer) & (person 2 is a nasty murderer) , they both deserve full blame. One common fallacy is to assume conservation of the blame; when you deal with e.g. bad parent raising a bad child, who grows up and becomes a criminal, the fact that parent is to blame shouldn’t diminish the blame on the criminal; the blame is not a conserved quantity and just because there’s someone else whom you can blame as well, doesn’t mean that the proximate person deserves less blame.
The way I see it, we are blaming the ‘intelligence’ process for the things that this process had caused or had the power to prevent, and we aren’t blaming it for other things where it was powerless. A bad outcome (like obesity) implies character flaw if less flawed character would not end up with this outcome. And it is perfectly consistent with the notion that the process itself had been shaped by things outside it’s control. A bad AI is a bad AI even though it’s programmer’s fault; a badly designed bridge is a bad bridge even though it is architect’s fault as well; more than one person can be equally to blame for something.
If someone is put into position where they truly believe they will get away with murder, gaining $1000, and if they murder someone, that is indicative of the character flaw, even though such conditions are extremely rare and this character flaw might well be relatively common.
Ohh, and something else: If two people’s actions result in murder so that the murder could of only occured if (person 1 is a nasty murderer) & (person 2 is a nasty murderer) , they both deserve full blame. One common fallacy is to assume conservation of the blame; when you deal with e.g. bad parent raising a bad child, who grows up and becomes a criminal, the fact that parent is to blame shouldn’t diminish the blame on the criminal; the blame is not a conserved quantity and just because there’s someone else whom you can blame as well, doesn’t mean that the proximate person deserves less blame.