Moral Obsolescence

What we are witnessing is not a failure of technology.

It is the success of a particular kind of engineering.

We have engineered an environment that teaches society it is acceptable — even responsible — to offload judgment, responsibility, and accountability onto systems and machines. Decisions are no longer owned; they are deferred. Outcomes are no longer answered for; they are explained away.

Like blaming the hammer when a structure collapses, rather than asking why the building was never brought up to code.

But tools do not choose.

Systems don't influence

They are engineered that way

We pretend intention ends at implementation, as if the moment a system is deployed, responsibility dissolves into mechanics. Yet intention is inseparable from result. Systems behave exactly as they are designed to behave — especially when they are designed to absorb blame.

This environment did not emerge accidentally.

It was created for a purpose.

When responsibility can be displaced onto “the system,” no one must answer for consequences. When accountability becomes procedural, principle becomes optional. The more skilled the engineering, the more complete the absolution.

And that is the real achievement.

Not efficiency.

Not scale.

But insulation — from judgment, from consequence, from moral reckoning.

We call this progress. But what it produces is not neutrality. It produces  moral obsolescence  — a condition in which responsibility is treated as an outdated liability, something to be automated away.

Yet responsibility is the only mechanism that corrects a lack of principle.

Remove it, and nothing pushes back.

Nothing rebalances.

Nothing stops drift from becoming collapse.

A system cannot feel the weight of what it breaks.

Only people can.

When we design environments where no one must answer, we should not be surprised when harm persists without authors, and injustice survives without villains.

That is not the hammer’s fault.

It never was.

Back to Menu