Does the idea of being created imply the necessity for obedience to a creator?

Question

If a scientist created intelligent life (biological, AI software, etc.), would that scientist have the right to dictate to that life a moral framework? Does the act of creation give implicit rights of ownership? Extending this to religion, do we have an obligation to obey divine commandments based solely upon the idea that we were created? Have these questions been addressed by any religious philosophers, and have they provided justification for the concept of obedience beyond "He/She/It made us, and therefore it is our duty to obey"?

Answer 1

This is a very good question.

First, let's go line-by-line to break down the issues presented.

DOES THE SCIENTIST HAVE THE RIGHT TO DICTATE A MORAL FRAMEWORK

Right out of the gate we are hit with a "chicken and the egg" paradox. If dictatorial rights flow from creation, then the only one capable of deciding what the scientist's rights are would be his own creator, if he has one. Whereas if he has no creator, or if his rights aren't determined by his creator then his rights are a matter of his own will, or fiat, if you will. He can, based upon his own power to destroy what he has created, dictate a list of commands and consequences.

This would not be morality as we understand it, though. It would simply be a list of actions with reactions. The question really, is whether or not the scientist could create intelligence capable of undertaking moral responsibility. This is a larger task than it appears. For our civilized sensibilities, a morality needs to answer delicate questions that are not addressed by immediate action and reaction.

DOES THE ACT OF CREATION IMPLY OWNERSHIP RIGHTS

The difference between creation and invention is pivotal here. For to create something all one needs is the list of ingredients and a detailed process to follow. However, invention or initial creation requires an understanding of things not yet existent in order to bring about something that is not real. In this sense an inventor of intelligent life could be considered the intellectual owner. They could be said to have a "patent" on that life, however this would speak very little to their ability to communicate expectations to, or garner respect and obedience from, their creation.

CAN A RELIGION BASE A DEMAND OF OBEDIENCE IN THE OWNERSHIP RIGHTS OF A CREATOR

Put simply, no. In order to accept an obligation, one must first be capable of understanding what one is agreeing to. Even if an omnipotent being created us and has expectations of us, it cannot expect to be justified in its disappointment if we do not meet expectations that have not been made clear to us. Each of us who would feel obligated would have to also have a very specific memory of entering into some kind of contract obligating our behavior.

WHO ELSE HAS WRESTLED WITH THIS ISSUE AND HAVE THEY COME UP WITH ANYTHING GOOD?