»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
The Moral Argument For God's Existence
| Philosophy 101 |
|
The Moral Argument For God's Existence |
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA 
|
Brad, The Moral argument for God is another form of Teleological argument. I think you've heard the line of reasoning before ... 1) A moral awareness is universal. Though not unanimous, the likenesses are far greater than the differences. I would even go so far as to say the differences are only as noticeable as they are, because of the backdrop of common ground. Lewis has done a preliminary harmonization of moral codes from various civilizations in the prologue of "The Abolition of Man". 2) Human beings do not treat morality as conventional or preferential, but as obligatory. When one has been accused of being immoral, you never hear the moral principle denied, only excuses given as to why this case is different ... an appeal to extenuating circumstances. And whenever one accuses another, an assumption is usually made that the moral principle that was breached was understood or perceived by the offender, resulting in real blame. None of this is definitive proof of Divine Mandate, only suggestive, as our approach to ethics is counterintuitive in mere evolutionary explanations of "morality". Consider the following quote, from an atheist thinker: "The conscience doesn’t make us feel bad the way hunger feels bad, or good the way sex feels good. It makes us feel as if we have done something that’s wrong or something that’s right. Guilty or not guilty. It is amazing that a process as amoral and crassly pragmatic as natural selection could design a mental organ that makes us feel as if we’re in touch with higher truth. Truly a shameless ploy” (Robert White, The Moral Animal — Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology ) 3) Not only is morality treated as transcending the individual, it is often treated as transcending community as well, for example, when a majority practice violates human dignity or rights, and is resisted by a smaller group. It is easy to imagine a “wrong” being embedded in the majority view. Entire cultures can be wrong. This would be non-sensical if morality is defined by consensus. Even those who hold to moral relativism, have noted this unavoidable conundrum. Consider the following quote by Anthropologist Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban: “One of the most contentious issues arises from the fundamental question: What authority do we Westerners have to impose our own concept of universal rights on the rest of humanity. . . . [But] the cultural relativists’ argument is often used by repressive governments to deflect international criticism of their abuse of their citizens. . . . I believe that we should not let the concept of relativism stop us from using national and international forums to examine ways to protect the lives and dignity of people in every culture. . . . When there is a choice between defending human rights and defending cultural relativism, anthropologists should choose to protect and promote human rights. We cannot just be bystanders.” (From ‘Cultural Relativism And Universal Human Rights). 4) Since morality is practiced as if, and considered as if it is something that overarches individuals, cultures, and communities, it is better explained in a religious way, than in a secular merely biological way. Mainly because nothing in the evolutionary biological sense is “obligatory”, everything is still on trial, and the only criteria for justification is survival value. And no convincing argument has been made that inexorably links moral behavior with survival. But morals are not treated, even by those who do not accept Theism, as if they are simply a variant of behavior in an evolutionary pathway. They are, contrary to their own reasoning, treated as we’ve always treated them, as matters of great import, and as areas of inquiry where there can be real right and wrong answers. Consider the following quote from atheist thinker Raimond Gaita: “Only someone who is religious can speak seriously of the sacred. . . . We may say that all human beings are inestimably precious, that they are ends in themselves, that they are owed unconditional respect, that they possess inalienable rights, and, of course, that they possess inalienable dignity. In my judgment these are ways of trying to say what we feel a need to say when we are estranged from the conceptual resources [i.e. God] we need to say it. . . . Not one of [these statements about human beings] has the power of the religious way of speaking . . . that we are sacred because God loves us, his children” (From ‘A Common Humanity: Thinking About Love and Truth and Justice.’) 5) Scripture describes a world in which God has imposed his moral law, both formally (ie, through written codes, such as the 10 Commandments), and informally, the “work of the law” being “written on their hearts” or conscience (Romans 2:12-16). It also describes the recipients of formal revelation as having an advantage (Romans 3:1), though none are able to fulfill the moral law perfectly (Romans 3:9). This explains how human beings have all, in some fashion or another, attempted to describe imperfectly something commonly perceived, and explains why different moral views, are typically based upon very similar moral principles, and have much in common, and may be sometimes wrong, sometimes right ... sometimes better, sometimes worse ... sometimes closer to, sometimes farther than the commonly perceived moral Law which is given by God. This view of things, which is not without problems of course, explains what we see and feel, regarding human morality, much more satisfyingly than merely biological theories of morality. Lastly, Brad, I do agree that both believers and unbelievers can be "moral" as commonly understood. And I understand that you see my view as a needless conflation of origin and identity. And I will answer that next, in a response. But I wanted to lay out the general argument first. Stephen. |
||
| © Copyright 2011 Stephen Douglas Jones - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
A tendency towards morality with distinct regional differences is exactly what you'd expect from an evolutionary driven response to socialisation. In fact the social/evolutionary explanation of morality fits better than a morality instilled by a god, which you'd expect to be far more uniform than it actually is, given the supposed single source. . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Uncas, I would say that the regional differences are not so distinct, given that most differences are a result of very like principles being applied to sundry situations and histories. A God who values both diversity and unity accounts well for both the differences and similarities. I see no reason why you might insist that complete homogeneity should be a prerequisite for Divine Moral revelation. That would be like saying that one God would have had to create all people white. And what I'm saying is like pointing out that very different colored skins have much in common. The problem with a merely-evolutionary account of morals, is that we would need to scrap our whole understanding of morals and what we invariably feel them to be, and how we act upon them. I've never met anyone who would say that child molestation is an unsuccessful evolutionary strategy to pass on genes, but had it turned out otherwise, it would be okay. The problem with that is it makes the moral question depend upon survival value alone (not upon some more basic, inexorable incumbency). But I'm gonna bet that's not at all what you believe about particular moral issues, in your mind, and in your use of language, when you happen to be wronged by others. I think that an explanation that coincides with what we already know and feel about morality, is better than an explanation that requires a complete overhaul. Stephen. |
||
|
stargal Senior Member
since 2006-03-06
Posts 1352OR USA |
Uncas, I was once told it isn’t that morality isn’t uniform, but that we (humans) distort it. It’s like a calm lake of water that someone throws a rock into. The rock splashes and causes the water to ripple outward, but does that change the fact that it’s a lake of water? No, it’s still a lake of water. When we consider morality from a religious perspective we see that there is an overarching moral code imposed on all people by a deity. We are given the opportunity (via that little thing called free will) to push, prod, stomp on, and think of morality as we will, but it remains the same regardless of how we interfere. Therefore we may argue over differences in opinion on what is moral and what is not, but in the end the ultimate decision breaker is what the deity set forth (and not what we would superimpose on the deity). |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: This isn't really what I wanted to talk about but I couldn't resist. First, Uncas is right. The God concept justifies, today, the throwing of acid on a woman's face, the killing of siblings, the sacrificing of women on funeral pyres, the suicide of proper devotees, the playing with poisonous snakes, and the withholding of medical aid to children. Simply put, we have to add another factor here: culture. Once we see that we see that "mere" biology is not monolithic, it does not explain everything. Once we see that atrocities can be committed in the name of God, in the name of an emperor-God, in the name of "Dear Leader", the overarching element that you mention becomes perfectly clear. It is an excuse for doing something that biological drives might try to dissuade you from. It is bigger than biology. But let's put another spin on this: murder is a perfectly reasonable and biological drive from an evolutionary perspective. What happens then when a community, a culture, a tribe, a family group decides that murder of one's own should be enshrined as the highest good in an overarching way. How long does it go before they realize that suicide is also something that should be enshrined? How long do they last? Kool-aid anyone? Evolutionary biology is not equivalent to spiritual morality in any form. It can't tell you to believe in something or not to believe in something. It can however give a pretty good idea of what happens once you adopt the above position, if taken in an overarching way, will probably result in that position's extinction. Don't conflate "overarching" with morality. They aren't the same thing. Remember, once we move into the spiritual realm, there is a very real downside to it as well. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad: quote: Brad, the universality of morality simply points to the existence of God. This is a general proposition, a sign post, certainly not a destination, nor a way to clarify all moral confusion. But it is a clue, and for many, the beginning of spiritual inquiry. Where religious culture (the word you used) distorts godliness, one must begin to ask specific questions about what makes one religious tradition better than another. For example, what makes the sacrificial love of Christ better than the extremism of Jihadism? Beyond that, what makes the historical claims of one tradition better than another? What makes one religious worldview more or less coherent than another? There is a whole series of questions following a basic belief in Theism. And The "Moral Argument" as I've called it, is only a beginning point. The thing is, you're trying to suggest, that for my views to be coherent, I need to accept a form of religious relativism. But I don't believe this, any moreso than I believe in moral relativism. Rather, I'm sure that in both morals and religious traditions, there are right and wrong answers. There are things both closer and farther to the Truth revealed by God. Throwing acid on someone's face as punishment, is just an example of a bad conclusion, based upon a good principle perceived somewhere along the line. The Judeo-Christian view of things certainly would say distorted religion is no better than secularism, or denial of religion. Pointing to bad answers does not invalidate that there are better ones. And in another sense, it simply confirms the state that scripture says we're in. God gives us his moral law, in sundry ways, we ALL distort it, in both religious settings and non-religious settings. Good moral truth can be taken advantage of, used as an "excuse". It is not altogether innocent, as you've spoken in the accusatory. But in making such allegations, you yourself are implying that there is a real right and wrong at work here. You yourself are assuming moral law, beyond social convention or individual opinion, else what you say would have no force. Your text above reeks of the preacher/reformer, whether you notice it or not. I just can't see how from a secular view, you can make the case that your moral distinctions can be anything but natural flux, or cultural consensus. quote: I think you've made my point ... Murder is a perfectly reasonable and biological drive from an evolutionary perspective. Therefore, to say it isn't okay, from that view alone, is arbitrary, not obligatory. Besides, you throw these examples out, but could you please cite me a culture that finds murdering one's relatives as a moral good? Usually, if something like this appears in communities (and thank God it is rare), it either shows up as transgression of morality, or either as the exaltation of a lone moral principle (justice, sacrifice?) beyond its proper place, taken out of the context of the whole. C.S. Lewis refers to the whole as the "Tao" in his book "The Abolition of Man". This may make moral awareness seem useless, since it can be so easily corrupted. But again, in the Christian view, moral law is an inescapable reality that points to something else, not an end in itself. As far as my using the word "overarching", I think you've misunderstood. I don't mean that one moral concept should overarch everything else, as highest importance, much less that something immoral should be venerated. What I mean is than an awareness of moral-law as a reality is intractable to humanity and universal among cultures, hence the term "overarching". Moral variance is surely conceded. But again, differences among a fallen humanity, in different times and circumstances, doesn't negate the huge swarth of common moral ground beneath (above) us. quote: "Say what you need to say ... Say what you need to say" - John Mayer  Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-31-2011 12:46 AM).] |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: But, importantly, not in a social setting. In a social group, where each individual's survival is dependent on the survival of the group, murder would be decidedly unstable survival strategy. Once the level of evolutionary pressures is raised beyond the individual to those of the group the advantages of a shared morality become obvious and, more importantly, inevitable. Extending evolutionary development from the individual to the group isn't that much of a leap if you think about it. After all individual genes exhibit survival tendencies that benefit the group (body) that they inhabit so it's no surprise that the same thing is repeated at a higher level. Male tigers murder the offspring of other male tigers, which for non-social animals is a stable survival strategy - Meerkats however babysit all the young in their social group regardless of the sire, which is a stable survival strategy in a societal setting. Of course, you'd expect to see natural variation within societies where a tendency towards pre-social behaviour was exhibited by individuals within the group and we'd also expect the group morality to only hold true within a distinct and definable social group. Rogue Meerkats that kill the young of their own group are observed and all Meerkats actively kill the young of rival groups. How are such acts of murder explained based on the concept of a universal morality dictated by a single god? . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Uncas: quote: No one said you had to murder them all, just the ones holding society back, those "less than human", various pawnbroker-woman types who are leaches upon society, Jews, handicaps, etc ... (Please, no one miss my facetiousness). Seriously, though, selective "murder" is still a live option, from an evolutionary standpoint. And it's certainly not such an unstable strategy as to have been culled from the herd. My whole point has been that, if we're rejecting murder based on its evolutionary instability, and not upon a more basic moral reality, then our "morals" concerning murder are pretentious. I feel quite sure that you yourself don't think of murder in a way consistent with your description of why it is wrong. quote: But you seem to be suggesting that individual "immoral" actions, at the discretion of the perpetrator, threatens the survival of the whole community. When as a matter of fact it doesn't necessarily have to. For example, one could choose to kill a population unable to reproduce, or a population considered to be a "burden" to society, or the weak and defenseless. It's a Nietzchian idea, but it certainly hasn't be proven to be at odds with the survival of an "elite" group. The point I'm trying to make is that if such a group were to "get away with" such treacherous policies and practices, by your view, they would have simply gambled on another evolutionary strategy and won. But the moral law that we sense, tells us that even were they to survive, it would still have been dreadfully wrong. I just don't see how someone holding your view could feel this way too. Or to put it another way, I don't see how someone who knows this, could hold to your evolutionary view of morals. But if you say that that survival and moral behavior always correlate, or even mostly correlate ... wouldn't that state of affairs, built into the the fabric of the world, be curious to you? quote: I'm not sure I understand what your aiming for here. Are you calling animal predation "murder"? Would even secular ethicians superimpose human morals on animals? In the Christian view, animals are not made "in the image of God" as human beings are. Coupled with this is the view that the Creation itself was subjected to what St. Paul referred to as "vanity". At any rate, given the distinction human beings have, Theologically speaking, this would account for the differing standards. Though I respect vegans, I haven't met anyone who really feels that killing animals for food is murder, much less that animal predation is murder. I guess in answering your question, I would just say that human beings, in God's economy, are called to represent God in a way that surpasses an amoral nature and the animal kingdom, to rise above a world "red in tooth and claw". Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Our animal-roots don't remove our religious branches nor do our religous branches remove our animal-roots. They are both very imporant to being a civilized ape |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: You mean those outside their own group? As I've already said you'd expect a morality which evolved to further a group of individuals to have boundaries, outside of which the moral laws are relaxed - meerkats babysit the young within their own group but murder the young of rival groups. Or if you like good meerkats do good things and bad meerkats do bad things but it takes a strong social bond to make bad meerkats do good things. A morality developed to ensure the survival of groups, driven by evolutionary forces, would predict wars, oppression and genocide along with individual acts of anti-social behaviour. which is exactly what we see when we look around us. quote: Moral judgement is dependent on the group you happen to belong to. Christians didn't believe it was dreadfully wrong or immoral to annihilate the Cathars, but I bet the Cathars did, where was universal morality in 14th century France? quote: I was pointing out that social animals, within their distinct social groups, act differently from non-social animals but as a group entity they exhibit anti-social tendencies towards other groups. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Claims made for the universality of morality should be as parsimonious as the claims we should make for any other hypothesis. Claims made by the oil industry based on the existance of oil should also be as parsimonious as possible. In either case, it is simple to build grand claims upon upon simple suppositions. Morality is not universal. It is useful and common, as any psychopath will tell you, and an excellent way to make money. While I happen to think it's dandy and I wouldn't leave home without it, or my own particular and peculiar version of it, I can't help but notice that I run into wide disagreements with others about the fairly conventional morality I call my own. While I can say that there may or may not be a God, I can almost always say that there is a will to power, and that morality gets trotted out in that context. One persons says to another, You have to do this! and the Othe says to the one, No, I don't and then, Why should I? That is the conversation that frequently generates a moral situation, and the motive hehind it is to impose one person's notion of what to do on another person. I think morality is an example much more of the urge to exert power than it is evidence of God. Don't get me wrong, there may well be a God. I am often convinced of it. I simply don't believe that morality is evidence of God so much as evidence of man's attempt to assert power over Her fellows. That's my opinion, of course. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Stephen said: quote: I guess my point wasn't all that clear. Regardless of what we think might be biologically natural, if the end result is not reproducible, it dies out. In this sense, given all the variances, anything that might be called universal morality must cohere with that point. Examples where this isn't so might include the Jim Jone's cult, the Heaven's Gate people, and "the we love death more than they love life" crowd. Of course, I'm also making a prediction here. If this is right and given that they continue to kill more Muslims than infidels, the Islamic terrorist faction will eventually disappear. It's not much of a consolation to tragedy but it seems right to me. Could we be seeing the beginning of something like that with the "Middle East 1848?" I think you're right that I misunderstood your use of "overarching". I'm still not sure I understand it as I can't see my contradiction. I presupposed a Western value system, but I don't see any need to believe in a transcendent value system. I simply think it would better, for us and for them, to think as you and I do -- more or less. What would that mean? Well, here's a quick list of values that should be esteemed: 1. honesty 2. equality 3. anti-authoritarianism 4. openness 5. self-correcting mechanisms 6. creativity With these in place, we might have a shot at restraining Bob's (or Fred's) will to power. [This message has been edited by Brad (04-02-2011 12:22 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: Essorant, I agree. Though I have scientific doubts about Evolution, I feel that were it true, it would still require a God (as long as "God" means that/who which is our transcendent source, and not vice versa) Uncas: quote: No Uncas, when I mentioned those kinds of people, I was referring to those who are a part of the larger community, and who have allegedly been holding it back. quote: But it doesn't explain the certainty you have that, aside from genetic survival, immoral acts are really immoral. Wars, oppression, genocide, and anti-social behavior are also explained by a deeper spiritual malady that scripture calls sin. And with that explanation, our moral convictions are not forfeited, or alternatively, held inconsistently with our bio-philosophy. quote: If moral judgment is dependent on the group you belong to, why do you imply a real (and not simply relative) moral failure of certain Christians in 14th Century France? Universal moral awareness, was the same place it has always been, with the understanding of some things: 1) Human beings act contrary to their own moral insights (conscience) 2) Human beings act contrary to what their religions prescribe (ask yourself what Jesus taught about someone's enemies, and aggression) 3) Human beings perpetrate evil by isolating one or more moral principles, apart from the whole of the Moral Law given by God. 4) Human beings commonly deceive themselves, by feeling justified in acting upon a sequestered moral principle, and therefore have a "divided self". Bob: quote: I think parsimony is maintained with the claim for universal morality, unless you could also say that the existence and infernal recurrence of bad art, shows that the artistic impulse isn't universal among people and cultures. That doesn't make sense to me. quote: But you never address the assertion that the most variant moral codes have much common ground. And you’ve constantly ignored the fact that I have never once argued that morality is anywhere near a unanimous affair. When I say "universal" I don't mean universally alike in every particular. I do mean that the major themes of morality repeat time and again among all cultures, irregardless of their applications, misapplications, or situational nuances. quote: But the post-modern insight that power struggle is imbedded within human behavior, cannot be applied to every moral principle. Surely you recognize that even the statement “human beings are bent on controlling each other” has more than a dash of moral disapprobation in it. What you seem to be leaving out of the discussion, is that some forms of “control” are absolutely moral and proper. Stewardship or responsibility would serve as a better word, though the concept of control is ever-present. The wearied post-modern critique of morality doesn’t stop there either. I could take the same approach to say that the only reason you are posting your words on this forum is to “control” others and to persuade them to your own druthers (That's why texts promoting literary deconstructionism are "built" on the same post-modern idea). But it would be preposterously inconsistent for me to take that approach. Such a “hermeneutic of suspicion”, though relying on a truth (human beings often have ulterior motives), makes the mistake of lumping everything in the same basket. And it is self defeating. That is my critique of what you are saying. But as a more positive argument for my own assertion, I would ask whether you could think of any “moral” principles that might not fit your paradigm of “morality as only a form of control”? What of altruism ... which, though rare, seems to be in another category than the kind of control you’re implying. And Bob, of course that’s your opinion, which means “what I think is more than opinion”. Brad, I’ll try and answer you soon. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad: quote: Two observations: Your use of the word "better" is based upon a moral sensibility on some level. Whether or not you say it overtly, it seems to me you're making an ethical statement by saying that our system is 'better'. Secondly, the list you provide is certainly good but incomplete. A couple of examples ... "anti-authoritarianism" means that we oppose government that turns out to be oppressive, not that we oppose authority or government per se, else "anarchism" should have been your word. And "openness" means the ability to change when needed, not the freedom to deface what is good and reliable. You value openness, and yet, if you have children you know this principle is moderated by protection and limitation. Also, I have to say that these values are not limited to the West in any fashion, as if we could put theirs into one column and ours in another, and present them as antithetical. What I'm trying to say regarding a universal morality, is that all cultures see and grasp the moral law ... but all have done so imperfectly. Consider this statement by Christian apologist Timothy Keller: "(If) Christianity is not the product of any one culture but is actually the transcultural truth of God ... we would expect that it would contradict and offend every human culture at some point ... If Christianity were the truth it would have to be offending and correcting your thinking at some place." (From 'The Reason For God- Belief In an Age of Skepticism') This is exactly what we see within culture. A non-western culture values Justice supremely, so that Jesus' statements about forgiving enemies, is offensive and counter-intuitive. Our culture has no problem with a forgiving and tolerant God, and yet balks at the concepts of divine judgment and punishment. The truth is, that God's revelation is corrective and challenging to both kinds of cultures. And furthermore, its obvious that these cultures, at variance, have both apprehended a real and significant part of moral truth. The chasm between appears when these aspects of moral truth are sequestered and practiced in isolation. And again, I'm not sure how to further explain my statement about "overarching", except by reiterating that such a universality fits our deepest certainties about morals, namely that they can't be explained or justified by a simple head-count, and therefore they stand in some fashion "above" cultural variation and bias. And I do concede that we ourselves can never quite escape that bias. But it doesn't follow that we have no awareness of something beyond, which is the very explanation of why the moral sense is ubiquitous to begin with. Stephen |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, we all have our charged dichotomies. If Ess changed religion to culture, and animal to biology, he and I would be saying the same thing. As far as I can tell, Uncas and I are saying the same thing. Nature and nurture yet again. I wonder if Stephen Pinker's catch-all "heritable" term might be useful here. The answer to the nature versus nurture question is both. Stephen has God's "revelation" (grace?) and sin. Let's see, Bob has "will to power" and not sure what the other term might be. I would argue that nature and nurture have already been deconstructed. We have no reason to choose one or the other; they work together to make up who we are and what we are. Now what? Morality as a transcendent (independent of space and time) concept or morality as a biological/cultural construct? Would I be placing too many charged terms in one sentence to be saying this: morality evolves? [This message has been edited by Brad (04-02-2011 05:09 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad: quote: I don't see the dichotomy as either one or the other, but as either both, or only the latter. I don't believe that the Christian view of morality discounts that moral ideas and practices are transmitted through a social/cultural mechanism. Yes, there is an innate tendency among cultures to recognize moral realities, but mothers and fathers and larger communities still inculcate their children. Stephen |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, okay. I don't know if I can go any further in that area. I was at a poker game on Friday and I brought up trans-humanism (along with comments on John Adams and C.S. Lewis of all things) and I got stopped there. I was trying to show how truly awestruck one can feel when we look at some of the ideas being thrown around today. As I talked about downloading consciousness into a computer, the point was made that what is being downloaded and what is being human might be two different things. A God of the gaps argument, sure, but all this stuff is still incredibly new. We've only recently discovered that we don't know what 96% (some have argued 99%) of the universe is made of. Evolutionary psychology is still in its infancy (Biological evolution is not.) Perhaps discretion is the better part of value. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
What in the discussion about trans-humanism was a "god of the gaps" argument? Actually, considering that most of what is taken to be true of biological evolution has not been remotely described or demonstrated, I would disagree about it not being in infancy (scientifically speaking). But if you mean that, as an influental cultural idea, it is not new, then yes. Stephen |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: An exhaustive definition of what makes us human. quote: Well, we haven't changed here, have we? Neither of us. I suppose something like lateral transfer of DNA makes a bit of a dent but we're still eukaryotes, not bacteria, not archaea. Did you here the one about the T. Rex and the chicken?  |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
This is switching tracks for sure. Though the "moral argument" probably has a lot to say about downloading human consciousness into cyberspace. The prefix "Trans" could definitely be replaced with "De", without too much adjustment. But seriously, could you elaborate on why you feel that our certainty that being human is more than say, AI, is a "god in the gaps" argument? Stephen |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: By whose measure of morality? My morality is sufficiently close to your morality to believe that exterminating Cathars is morally wrong but the Christians doing the exterminating at the time obviously didn't share that morality. Your claim pre-supposes a universally shared morality that, based on the evidence, simply doesn't exist. Any argument that suggests that because someone with a similar set of evolved moral values as yourself believes an act is immoral proves that such beliefs are universal is doomed to failure as long as there exists clear evidence that some groups don't actually hold those beliefs. quote: Morality, or the concepts of what constitutes moral behaviour, certainly evolves. The evidence of that evolution is overwhelming. The 1st century Christians had a different concept of what was morally acceptable than 14th century Christians. Who in turn had different moral values than current Christians and they all had different moral values than other contemporary groups. . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think the same general principle is taking place throughout lifeforms (including humans), but among humans intelligence interferes a lot more so it is not as automatic or consistent as among other animals. That is it is not called "instincts" as often among ourselves, because our intelligence allows us artistically to modify our approach to anything a lot more. Therefore we have many different names (thoughts, morals, religion, laws, politics, etc) for what at its root is still the basic instinct of an animal, but responded to in a much more artistic and variable way than other animals may respond. However, whether we are talking about a microbe or a man, we are all trying to do what is right for life/survival in one way or another. This is fairly universal. It may be stretched and twisted in many different ways, but it is the same underlying elastic throughout all life-forms, an "elastic" that is one part and parcel with life and therefore inherently tries to live and do what helps it live as well. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Uncas: quote: By everyone's measure of morality. We don't have to agree about particulars, in order to share a certainty that immoral acts are really immoral. If morals are based upon mere survival value, then I can't see why anyone would be so sure that immoral acts are immoral. Do you only think immoral acts are wrong if someone "gets caught"? If not, then from a solely evolutionary explanation of morality, why not? quote: I'm curious ... do you belief it was really morally wrong, or just different? What do you mean when you say you think they were being immoral? Do you believe that they, as a community, could possibly be wrong, or only different? If the former, then you confirm what I'm saying. If the latter, then you undermine your own moral disapproval of those particular Christians, the very force of your argument. What about these assertions which I've mentioned? 1) People act against their own moral insights. Evidence: Guilt 2) People act against their own religious prescriptions. Evidence: Jesus in particular, and the New Testament in general does not support aggression, and yet some Christians practice violence. The Bible does not recommend adultery, and yet some Christians commit adultery 3) People rationalize immoral actions by isolating one moral principle at the expense of others. Evidence: Ask them to justify why they did something, and they will appeal to moral principles that you too, hold in some esteem, whether or not you agree with their actions. quote: My evidence is that you know that the bellicose Christians you've mentioned might be wrong, and not just different in the same way brown eyes are different than blue. More evidence includes the fact that people, including you and I, act against their own moral insights. More evidence includes the fact that people, including you and I, understand what it means to be self-deceived, whenever self interest is bound up in one's decisions and actions. If my above assertions are reasonably true, then we have a sufficient challenge to the idea that moral differences are solely explained biologically or genetically. quote: Then you've thoroughly misunderstood and misstated my argument. My argument is that ALL human moralities are variants of the same moral principles, which is evidence for a universal moral awareness, however imperfect. If you understood my argument (even without agreeing with it) you would probably stop giving moral variance as a refutation of it, since the argument itself doesn't depend upon unanimity. "Underneath many differences in particular moral codes there are common basis of moral principles. For example, variants of the Golden Rule occur in very many different cultures. Try to imagine a society where cowardice is admired and where double-crossing people who have been kind to you is a cause for pride." (C.S. Lewis, from 'The Abolition of Man') "The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of planting a new sun in the sky or a new primary colour in the spectrum ... Every attempt to do so consists in arbitrarily selecting some one maxim of traditional morality, isolating it from the rest, and erecting it into an unum necessarium." (C.S. Lewis, from the essay 'The Poison of Subjectivism') I choose these quotes from Lewis, not because the argument is solely his, but because he communicates it well. I know you don't, at this point, agree with what I'm saying. I would like you, however, to argue against what I've actually been saying, which is that universal moral awareness and particular moral variance are not antithetical, as evidenced by the common moral assumptions that are made in order to disagree. It's as If I were arguing that fixing cars was a universal trait, and you argue back by pointing out that any two mechanics are likely to disagree. So maybe you could explain in detail why you think moral disagreement and (non-comprehensive) universal moral awareness must be incompatible. Stephen |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I don't have a problem with a humanistic moral capacity just as I don't have a problem with a humanistic linguistic capacity. I don't see it as a signpost and I think we can trace it from survival strategies along the same lines as Dennett's "intentional stance" or, what seems to be innate, the idea of other minds. From there, if you employ a kind of "veil of ignorance" it all seems to come together. Variation and aberration are easily explained then. When you don't follow one of the above points, you get what we would call immorality. Or is that just too abstract? I ask that simply because the devil, of course, is in the details. By "god of the gaps" earlier, I assumed that the guy I was talking to was worried about a soul. That is, because we don't know precisely the relationship between mind and brain (except that all evidence points to the mind's dependence on the brain) and we don't know precisely the relationship between body and brain, we can then postulate the soul in that position. Maybe I was wrong. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: All human moralities may be variants of something. Beyond that, however, you are trying to define something by using the thing itself as a referrent, and I don't believe this will do. It is a tautology. It is a circularity. It eats its own tail. It does not work as a piece of definition or as a piece of logic. The notion of Universal moral principles is also a bit dodgy. You have snuck in that concept without demonstration, and I am not certain it is supportable. There seem to be elements of behavior that are reasonably wide-spread. These can be tested. Principles need to be deduced, demonstrated and proven. You can test whether or not people want to be right by tracking their speech patterns, agreeing on what constitutes arguement and what constitutes agreement, and then developing a test with high inter-rater reliability to measure speech samples from as many different places and situations as you can find. You should be able to test that hypothesis pretty well. The more concrete the principles you want to test, the more likely you will be able to test them as well. I cannot say if your conclusion is right or wrong here. You may in fact be correct, Stephanos, but I don't believe you can actually establish that as a fact in this way. Universal moral principles? You'd need to show me. However imperfect is a big caviat. That's another way of talking about inter-rater reliability, and at some point in a scientific examination of a data set, there is enough variation in the inter-rater reliability to mean that the conclusion is junk. The way you're phrasing it here suggests that when you look at moral reasoning, there are no junk conclusions — "however imperfect" is that big a fudge factor. So, which are the moral Principles? And how do we know that they're variations of the same moral principles and not something entirely different — where is your inter-rater reliability on this, in other words? What defines them as moral principles as opposed to laws of physical science, such as gravity, or colors or other catagories? And how can you be certain that that you justify the use of all capital letters in the word ALL? There are porobably other questions, but these are enough to give me a headache for now. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Acquire knowledge. It enableth its possessor to distinguish right from wrong; it lighteth the way to Heaven; it is our friend in the desert, our society in solitude, our companion when friendless; it guideth us to happiness; it sustaineth us in misery; it is an ornament among friends, and an armour against enemies." - Muhammad (SAW) |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, I'll try and answer soon ... I've been way too busy to do it justice. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, Here is how the humanistic view of morals fails ... It explains morals ever in amoral terms, ie survival strategies. But immoral behavior has not been eliminated or culled by evolution, which invariably means that survival value and morality have not been shown to correlate. Therefore it is reasonable to look elsewhere for an explanation. The Divine source of moral law, explains why people feel the way they do about moral issues, while the humanistic view only explains away how people feel about them, which leads to a kind of dehumanizing factor. According to the materialist view of morals, we can come to understand what morals really are (surivial strategies in disquise). It seems to me, according to this view, we should either correct our thinking on morals, or keep traditional morality as an irrational trait that we aquired either socially or genetically. The dehumanizing factor is similar in the tendency to equate the human “soul” with the physical brain. While the argument for the soul can be accused of “god of the gaps”, the argument that humans are only machines or algorithms is reductionist. It doesn’t explain much of what we have been certain of, in art, religion, philosophy, and theology. Even in the coarsest love poetry, we are too sure to express in words that our beloved is more than a particular combination of hair, electricity, and hormones. It is the conviction that we are more than the sum of our parts. There are a million unquantifiable things that are ignored in such an atrocious philosophy. Of course, this can be taken to mean that any philosophy that includes them is another “gaps” argument. But the belief that all things can be quantified (and especially the belief that we can eventually know all things in this way, via technology), is itself unempirically derived, and unquantifiable. So the claim that “all evidence” supports that the brain and the human soul (or self) are the same thing, is a reductionistic claim because of everything it leaves out. It also has problems of its own, since the relationship between selfhood and brain function has not been established. Is the self a series of cerebral events? If so, then which event unites them, and why would that event not be merely one more in a series. The unifying factor is a mystery. You may have “faith” that the mystery is about to be solved, but that is not evidence or science. You may say these difficulties I raise are more “god of the gaps”, since I am critiquing what is not known. But from my view, certainty is not always connected to quantity or empirical demonstration, nor should we have ever expected it to be. Lastly, I have more in common with you than you might think. I make an argument for the Christian view of humans, not a Platonic “immortality of the soul”. The Christian, believing in bodily resurrection, also believes that the spirit is incomplete without the body (that doesn't mean of course that there is no "intermediate state" or that the brain is the sole means of consciousness). But the Christian conception of soul, goes a bit deeper than the problems you’ve raised about the brain, calling attention to the unifying factor that gives rise to self, and the divine will which gives rise to human beings and their brains to begin with. Brains, in this view, are the modus operandi of conscious life on earth, integral but never primary. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: No. I’m not defining morality by referring to morality. I am saying that certain things about how all cultures perceive morality, are a clue about God. As long as effects can be used to explore causes, and causes to explore effects, your charge of circular reasoning fails to invalidate what I’m saying. quote: But Bob, your notion that all knowledge must be ‘demonstrable’ is itself not demonstrable. I of course assume you mean by ‘demonstrable’ something like hard science or mathematics. However, observation has been made and documented about the similarities of various moral codes throughout history. I’m not dodging anything. I’d be happy to post some of this information if you wish. I’m also aware that such comparisons are not objectively conclusive, only highly suggestive. I’m only presenting the moral argument as a salient clue that we all have some level of awareness of a moral reality that transcends ourselves, and presents us with very real “oughts” and “ought nots”, that biological reductionism doesn’t account for. quote: Bob, I don’t think the shared moral principles among cultures is doubted sufficiently to require such a study as you describe to establish it, though historical comparisons have been done. Materialists simply have another explanation than a spiritual one to account for it, ie , shared ancestry and shared genes. My argument has been to underscore the similarities, yes, but mainly to point out that one account is more consistent with how we view moral issues. quote: Do you deny that human beings violate their own moral insights? Do you feel that cultures can be more morally right or wrong than others? If these common assumptions, which I daresay you believe based upon your own soapboxes from time to time, are plausible or reasonable, then much of this variance is explained. Remember my argument has never been moral unanimity. You yourself have certainly concluded a naturalist explanation of morals, and yet I doubt you would attempt to argue that every moral action is related to survival value. Is the conclusion junk? You see, I am not timid to concede that survival is partially related to moral behavior (another relation in favor of teleology). I only insist that it is not always so, else ‘doing the right thing, for the sake of doing the right thing‘ could not be known. quote: Non-malifience, Beneficence, Autonomy, Devotion to community, Justice, Fidelity, Honesty, Privacy ... to name a few. And, for your consideration, Illustrations of The Tao by Lewis quote: Moral law always presents us with an "ought" which makes it quite distinct from laws of physical science, which are coercive. Moral law, on the other hand, invariably has to do with our will. Could you name any physical "law" which works in this way? quote: Indeed "All" is a bit strong Bob, since there may be cultures we've never discovered or don't know about. But let me pose you this question: Can you give me an example of any cultural with a moral code that is utterly foreign to our own moral principles, or that is based upon something other than a moral value that we too know and understand? I'm not for stoning anyone, but I understand the degradation of infidelity, and I understand justice and retribution even if they are greatly limited in my society, and in my own awareness of personal sin. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: What is it about how all cultures perceive morality are a clue about God? This begs the question on at least two points. The first is that what you call morality is not simply a power struggle between two people or camps about rulership. The winner of that struggle is the person or camp who has the power to set and enforce the rules, and is a political struggle. The second example of begging the question is that you seek to establish a point of faith as an undisputed point of fact, and is an example of the first. That is, that there has, in fact, been established amongst everybody here the reality of a God about whom clues may be found. This is not the case. You have not sufficiently defined morality from power to establish it as distinct from power and the exercise of power by force or other means of suasion. In my opinion, your reasoning remains circular. You are in a hurry to talk about God. I can understand this and even sympathize with it; it’s a fascinating subject. But if your plan is to use morality as a springboard to that subject, I think you need to establish that there is morality of something like it first as a starting point. quote: If it is not demonstrable, how is it knowledge? Indeed, why would you even title something “The Moral argument for God’s existence” if you were not attempting a reasonable and convincing demonstration of exactly that? If you were planning to present “a half-hearted an illogical demonstration of something that only appears to address important points about how morality offers clues to the existence of God,” I would come with a different set of expectations. Hard science or mathematics I doubt I could follow. I suspect that you might be better at it than I am. But with some effort I can at least try to follow some simple logic, and I can often follow some simple trains of reasoning. That’s really all I need. I have some familiarity with neoplatonic archetypal thinking. I am a fan of Jung’s archetypal thinking, and I understand how a lot of basic thinking forms tend to crop up cross culturally. If you have other interesting reference for me to check out, I’m always interested in that sort of thinking. Anything you can teach me is wonderful. Nor do I think you’re dodging anything. I’ve always had a lot of respect for your honesty and the sincerity of your religious thought and experience. I don’t require conclusive. Conclusive is for much further down the line and certainly not at all for where the state of the discussion is right now. I am unhappy with any sort of reductionism. I don’t like Freudian reductionism, I don’t like biological reductionism, and I don’t like religious reductionism. To the extent that I understand God, God is extraordinarily patient on a scale that may not be humanly understandable. Now I’ve got myself making theological generalizations. Sometimes you are very bad for me and very good for me, Stephen, both. I will probably need to return to the discussion when I’m not giving away my lunch money, and when I’m not keeping Elaine awake with my typing. Affectionately yours to you, your wife and your children, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Not exactly. It just can't be contrary to survival. I have time for two points right now: 1. The only people I've heard who talk about Naturalism the way you do are Christian apologists. Nobody else talks like that. Nobody equates morality with survival strategies or the brain with the mind. It's a strawman. You have to include the conceptual in any discussion like this. Okay, maybe not "nobody" but I don't see it in what I read. 2. Why would reframing an explanation of morality in terms of amorality be dehumanizing? It's simply another way of looking at the same thing. I don't feel any less human or less in love if someone explains to me what's happening biochemically inside my brain when I'm in love. In the same way, I don't feel immoral if I accept an amoral description of my morality. This proposed innate sense of right and wrong (signified by guilt) does not disappear if someone has a decent scientific description of it. It's just a different description. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The difference is not that morals are not, at their roots, instincts, inherited from other animals before us and with things in common with other animals, but that our higher intelligence allows us to respond in a much more complicated way. We have the basic instinct to live and do what helps living, and our higher intelligence takes this further by building a shelter of civilization to try to make sure we can live individually and collectively in a life-benefitting way. Indeed, it is a survival strategy, because surviving is what life at its root is about. It makes sense for life to live. If it doesn't live, it can't be life. Doing what preserves life is the common morality of all lifeforms, beginning at individual survival and then extending to further relationships, with some lifeforms being able enough to build complex communities to live together and divide the work and play more effectively among themselves. Nature is not perfect though and our intelligence and civilization are not perfect either, therefore both nature and civilization may do things that contradict themselves, but this doesn't remove the general direction or morality of doing what helps serve and ensure life/survival. [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-12-2011 12:56 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: Not if I have shown than there are examples of morality that won't fit into that parochial post-modern conception (that comes from recent western industrialized cultures). I've already mentioned altruism, which in one form or another shows up repeatedly in diverse communities as a moral value. How does that fit your "will to power" theory of morals? And I've also pointed out that a political struggle for power, as the basis of morals, fails if morals exist in communities without political power ... Or if there is any moral critique of political power itself. It seems that the whole question of obtaining power is subject to moral critique. And if it stands beneath moral realities (such as the universal recognition that there are both good and bad examples of control), then it fails to explain. So, while you continue to demand quantitative data, for a question that is not that sort at all, you haven't commented on my answers. quote: I know this will be offensive to you, and some others. But the question is not so easily settled. The majority of humanity has indeed conceived of deity, in one way or another. If we are to take what Chesterton called "the democracy of the dead", we could deduce that it is more basic to believe in gods or (a God) than to not. In addition to this, we know that in human psychology there are examples of suppression and denial, especially when a belief might cause mental duress, or when shame or culpability is involved. Self deception is possible, especially when something is bound up with the subjective as well as the objective. From the Christian perspective, belief in God was never meant to be so obvious that will and devotion are excluded. On the other hand, it is not so obscure that it could be called complete fideism, or that accountability and public knowledge is impossible. I agree with St. Paul when said that "since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities- his eternal power and divine nature- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse". Not that this doctrine isn't qualified by the recognition of honest doubts and some ambiguity. It does however, speak of final conclusions. In short my belief is that the knowledge of God is in some sense public. I'm just not sure that it can be humanly proven to be, or not to be. I'm only arguing that it is reasonable to think so. And lastly Bob, for the life of me, I can't imagine how something would have to be "established among everybody" in order for clues to be found. Is there anything of certainty that you know that is "established among everybody"? quote: But you haven't even commented on the observations I've given about the immense commonality between moral codes. You've only responded in two ways ... 1) By insisting on circularity, which can be found in anyone's thinking as long as there are presuppositions (for example, don't you presuppose that a rigorous scientific study be conducted in order for something to be considered certain? And yet this belief of yours was in no way derived itself derived by scientific rigor- it is a presupposition of yours). The question is, which circle best describes what is observed and experienced? Or 2) Continuing to insist on formal research, which you've presupposed works for this kind of sociological anthropological philosophical theological and historical question. I just want you to begin to comment on what I've already brought forth. quote: It seems you're muddling things now. At first you alluded to the necessity of rigorous study, and now you change "demonstrable" to mean something more like "reasonable". I have argued in a reasonable, but not unassailable, manner, though I haven't conducted rigorous research (which I doubt even applies to the nature of such a question as this). At any rate, your definition of demonstrable is evolving in the course of this discussion. quote: But you haven't argued or explained how my argument is unreasonable. I assure you it is reasonable. How you responded is evidence that it is. You didn't initially respond by saying it was illogical or unreasonable. Rather, you questioned my premises and insisted on scientific verification. Now you're switching tracks. But I'm going to assume that had my argument been illogical, you would have caught that right off. quote: Fair enough. I would only add that with a personal God, slavish reductionism isn't necessary. God has given us much freedom, and many ethical facets to explore that have to do with our relationships with each other as well. quote: A point of unadulterated and unqualified agreement. quote: Likewise, I have a lot of respect for you Bob. Sometimes I debate in a way that makes others think I'm being disrespectful, but I hope you don't take it that way. Blessings to you and your family. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: No, I've looked at the presuppositions you've made in constructing your proposition, which is the starting point of the discussion. I use some of the language of science, but I'm less of a scientist than you are in many ways. Nor have I advocated formal research, though I have used some of the language of research because it gives a more operational way of looking at some of the abstractions folks are apt to use in discussions such as this. Inter-rater reliability, for example, gives us a way of looking at the ways people judge that "moral systems" are similar across a variety of cultures instead of just eyeballing it in. "The immense commonality between moral codes" is a nonsense assertion unless it can be operationalized because it may be immense to you beyond all shadow of a doubt and meaningless to Joe Atheist in the other corner with an equal passionate sincerity. Unless the two of you have some language to use in addressing each other, all you can hear is the truth that each of you espouses and not the truth the other espouses. Neither of you has a method of understanding or resolving your differences and is relegated to a sort of blank incomprehension about the other. Worst of all, you lose each other as people, and are inclined to suspect that the other may not be there in any real sense as a person. My insistence is on careful language use and actual engagement between those discussing the question. I am trying to keep the logic straight as I can. I am doing my best to use whatever tools I have to do this. I am interested in" the immense commonality between moral codes" as I've said before, if only because they reflect some of my fascination with Jungian Psychology and its neo-platonic basis. I love that stuff. I had ten years of Jungian analysis. I have Archetypal dreams. The problem here is that we haven't gotten to them yet. As near as I can tell, you haven't established a working definition of what morality actually is yet, you are in such a hurry to get to dessert: trying to prove God's existence. Now you are trying to tell me to hurry up, for some reason, , and talk with you about the commonality of moral systems when you haven't to my satisfaction, established that there's a difference between coercion and morals and power and morals, and where that distinction lies, if there is a distinction at all. For some people, it seems fairly clear, there is not. They do things because the are afraid of punishment, and they avoid doing things for fear of punishment. They go through life that way. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: Bob let's start with Lewis' "Illustrations of the Tao". Did you read it? quote: How precise of a definition must we have prior to discussing something? But then again, I'm not sure you've adequately defined definition enough for us to venture into that subject matter. Admittedly I was presuming a basic understanding of what morality is prior to the discussion, and I still do. And before you say that's evasive on my part, it's at least notable that you're the only one that ever objects on those terms (though you never require a precise definition of politics prior to your political talk in the Alley). I'm aware that wheels have been used for many different things in different cultures, I'm really not interested in a long dialogue with me ever having to reinvent it, and you ever deconstructing it. quote: But what about moral behavior that recognizes propriety, honor, and dedication to the lives of other people? If this too exists in cultures, then it would seem that "morality as power" is a deficient explanation. From an apple we can conceive of both a rotten apple and a good one. But we can't conceive a good one from a rotten one. Do you really think the basic acts of kindness and courtesy you appreciate from those you love, are power moves? Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (04-12-2011 11:03 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
No, I haven't read Lewis' lessons on the Tao, though I am familiar with the Tao te Ching and have been doing a form of taoist meditation, the microcosmic orbit, for about twenty years. Perhaps you might off me a reference or a description to help put me on track? The alley is often infuriating, of course, but there seems a fair amount of difficulty with definitions there as well, in case you hadn't noticed. You might try considering the current discussions about the budget in which the Republican side wishes to deal with budget problems by cutting, mostly cutting money to help people who are suffering in one way or another, and where the democrats are trying to point out that cutting doesn't help very much when you give away massive amounts of revenues from the budget to begin with, and then borrow the money to pay for those give aways in the second place and put them on a high interest credit card in the third. There you have it in the alley, Stephen, a definition problem with how to solve the budget problem. And that's simply in one single instance. Oh, and I hear tell that the Republicans are about to unveil another interesting tax cut proposal, this one to cut 29% off the taxes of those who earn a million bucks or more per year, thus lowering their tax rate to the lowest rate that it's been since 1931. Guess who's supposed to make up the difference? How does this fit with your moral arguments that such a significant portion of the population is actually trying to throw the rest of the population under the bus? This isn't simply a few outriders? These are folks who try to present themselves as the most moral of the most moral of people. And no, I don't believe we have established a working example of what morality is yet. These folks argue that they are moral, even as they try to eliminate health care for millions of the least empowered women in the country. Do you agree with them? Does that make you moral or not moral? What is the definition that you use. I have one set of definitions around abortion, for example, and you have another. Are you telling me that both of us, each of us feeling that we are acting with some moral justification, are correct and are operating from the same moral principles? I can live with that, Stephen, but I don't know that you can, and you are glossing over exactly this discussion, just using a single example, but using large words to cover over gaps that we have have major disagreements about before. These disagreements haven't left town because it's convenient for your proof of God this time to say they've left town, Stephen. And I'm not being a spoilsport because I actually remember them and think they need to be accounted for in the context of this discussion. I can't be somebody who's partly responsible for the murder of millions of innocent children in one breath and a moral and responsible human being who shares your values on the next. You have to account for the difference, if in fact most moral systems are the same at heart. You need to find some way to make my moral point of view legitimate, valid, and sane and in basic agreement with yours if you are going to make statements like you've been trying to make and actually have a leg to stand on. You certainly can dismiss my point of view and tell me that we're thinking the same way if you want, but you will have a hard time convincing me and most people that you've similarly dismissed out of hand as being deluded, immoral or plain wrong that we have the same basic moral sense that you do here. And that, Stephen, is why I am asking you to define what you're talking about. Because if we're talking about the same basic thing, you ought to be able to do exactly that, and you shouldn't need to attempt to bully me into agreement with you. quote: For what it's worth, the closest thing I've ever found to a decent discussion of morality is Lawrence Kohlberg's work on Moral Development, which is a stage theory. It's not simple, but it does account for some of the things we've been talking about. It's been a while, but some of the people at Harvard divinity school did some work with the theory of moral development and developed a theory of faith development that's extremely interesting as well, and might be helpful to you in some of your personal searching. Or it might not. I know that you do enjoy thought with your faith, and this stuff certainly has it. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
For me, morality is easily defined. It's how I feel about what I do. It's not about power or coercion, Bob, because it has nothing to do with what you feel about what I do, or even with what I feel about what you do. That's why morality can never be successfully legislated. Definitions are still important, but only further down the road. For example, we probably both feel that killing is immoral. Everyone feels killing is immoral. It's one of those universally common points of morality that Stephen talks about. How we personally define killing, however, isn't so universal. Some people feel it's immoral to kill animals, especially when done cruelly. Some people feel it's immoral to kill the unborn, with extremes ranging from contraception right up to delivery. Some people feel it's immoral to kill convicted murderers. Some people feel it's immoral to kill in war, even when their own lives are endangered. The list of differences goes on and on. The differences, however, don't invalidate the similarities. When push comes to shove, the feelings we experience when we do something we believe is wrong are remarkably similar. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Stephen, I pretty much stumbled on this debate a couple of weeks ago, I'd like to hear your take on it: Shelly versus Craig Shelly Kagan covers a lot of stuff that I think is right. The terminology is different: When he says reflection I would probably say being able to think about what we think. His is the better word. I honestly don't know if you agree with Craig or not but it does seem like both were genuinely interested in the views of the other. Something you don't see very often. Okay, the link doesn't take you to the specific video I wanted you to see. You mentioned before that you're short on time these days (I know the feeling) so push the five-minute video of the two of them sitting together. I think that "summary" covers a lot. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Here's a direct link to the Overview video I "think" Brad was directing us to. I wish I had a faster Internet connection; this sounds like an interesting discussion, but it takes me about five minutes for each one minute of download and the discussion appears to be as loooong as it is interesting. From the five minutes I did watch, I'm not sure I agree with either participant? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I ended up watching the whole 90 minutes after all. I was right; I don't agree with either side entirely. On the other hand, I don't disagree with either side entirely either. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Thank you, Ron, for weighing in. I'm afraid sometimes when I get involved in these discussions, it's simply a one on one with myself and somebody else with nobody else listening to let a little fresh air in. What you're talking about makes some sense to me at some points in a discussion about morality, but not at others. I mentioned Kohlberg's stages of moral development above. I'm not sure I agree entirely with his thinking, or any thinking about morality simply because I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about this particular aspect of it. But Kohlberg does talk about how — if I've got this down correctly — morality seems to develop from the outside inward. I'm sorry about the spatial metaphor; I simply haven't figured how to get around it. I think that may be why a lot of the most basic descriptions of morality seem to talk in the beginning at least about the fear of God or the fear of punishment, and why you sometimes hear so much about "God-fearing men." Whatever. Your comments about the sense of internal feeling for what is right and what is wrong make a good deal of sense to me as well, especially in the sense that the make a powerful appeal to the notion of the sense of a common community with the sense of what is right and proper. I have a sense of what is right and proper, certainly. It is unfortunate that this seems to be a sense that I seem to share with everybody else that I know about — which speaks to Stephen's point, I suppose, and your own — but those people don't always include the folks that I consider moral folks, nor do the folks who have that internal sense of right and wrong necessarily share values. The Great southern senator from (was it?) South Carolina, Calhoun, previously secretary of war, Vice president of The United States and I believe Secretary of State, was pro-slavery and helped lead the South into The Civil War in Defense of that institution, which he defended stoutly. On Biblical grounds, as I recall, which he took very seriously indeed. So the question that I ask remains a real question, because that feeling of rightness and wrongness based on that internal feeling, which Senator Calhoun certainly had in spades, is not what appears to be a trustworthy guide here, much as I would like it to be, and much as I would like to believe that I have some sort of direct connection to the moral principles that beat at the heart of the universe. If anybody had earned through principled action and upright committment to stern religious values the right to say that he had an understanding of what was moral and what was not moral, I would have said that in a just world, that man would really have had to have been Senator Calhoun. He tried very hard to be the best Christian he could possibly have been, with utmost sincerity, in the same way that some of the great Republican Abolitionists of that period tried as well, and I think he was a righteous man, but terribly and tragically wrong. And that there was some sort of problem that allowed him to define what he was thinking and doing as being moral, though I think he meant well. And I think that there was something about what he was doing that was different from what the anti-slavery people were doing, not simply in style but in kind I won't say that I can put my finger on it, because I can't at this point, though I really wish I could, but I do believe it has something to do with the lengths to which the man was willing to go to exert power to win his argument about who had the right to control the rights and lives of others. Calhoun thought that winning the argument for his side was worth the subjugation of other people or even their deaths. I can't say that the union side was all that different, but they were against treating people as property, or at least a significant number of them were. I can say that's enough for me to want to be more clear about what we mean by moral behavior. I want to be able to distinguish my feeling for rightness, if at all possible, from Stalin's or Himmler's or Lenin's or Mao's, all of whom, I'm reasonably certain thought they were morally certain as well. I suspect those are not the shared values that Stephen or Ron suggest humanity holds in common, though I suspect they are as heartfelt as the values that Ron and Stephen and perhaps even I would like to say we all hold. While I'm fairly serious about Do not Murder, I'm not by any means certain of it being a universal value. I still think we need to try to define what's moral and how do we determine that, and I applaud Ron for his shot at it. I can say for sure that he's done better at it than I have, by far. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, I will get to that vid in few days perhaps. Hate to make you wait that long for a response, but, yep work schedule has thickened as of late. I'm pleased with the earnest discussion that's going on, from all. I also, like Bob, am glad someone else chimed in. I've had many thoughts about what you've all said, and about what I want to share too, when time permits. Goodnight, and "see" you soon. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: Lewis’ use of the word “Tao” refers to the concept that there is a ‘rightness’ in nature, which was a part of Taoist thought. I thought you would have caught the link I put in my post earlier. Here it is again Illustrations of The Tao quote: Of course I’ve noticed Bob. But my point, again, wasn’t that homogeneity of opinion is true, but that you all tend to agree on a general definition of something, or else you couldn't even disagree about particulars. There's not even a precise definition of government either, and yet the discussion proceeds. (Well yeah, I guess since its the alley, we should attempt to define 'proceed' ... lol) quote: But if they rationalize their actions in moral language, what does this illustrate more than what I’ve already said? ... namely that people all share a remarkably similar set of moral principles. What is in question with politicians, is not their moral assumptions, but their actual moral behavior (of those who are dishonest) or the outcome of their actions (of those who are honestly mistaken about the implications of their programs). The proof of common moral ground is in the fact that politicians make moral appeals to things already agreed upon. It is an example of the use, and/or abuse of a common morality, for personal ends. Remember Bob, you’re the one who equates morality with power, which means that though your framework should explain both the “good” and “bad” examples, it really only explains the bad. My view, recognizing morality as something more than an arbitrary human construct, explains both good and bad examples. In other words, this view can accommodate the shady Republican (or Democrat), but can yours accommodate the altruist, or the one who is primarily thinking of the good of others? If so, you haven’t explained it. quote: Whether I agree or not, is irrelevant to this thread, and would only launch it into politics. But I do want to remind you that party disagreements such as this center around disputing proposed outcomes of their respective plans, not disputing the moral good of beneficence, which both claim. Of course either group may be wrong, or dishonest, or have a mixture of motives. But that they both appeal to the common moral principle of beneficence, is evidence of a shared awareness of transcendent moral law. quote: No, I’m not telling you that both of us are correct and are operating from the same moral principles. But I am telling you that we are operating from the same moral principles. Again, in the abortion debate, both sides appeal to beneficence, and claim that human life is worthy of protection. They disagree about when human life begins. All of this has a caveat. Great moral evil may be done, even while assuming (or claiming) the same morality. There is the possibility of simply being wrong about the question of when human life begins, with good motives. I don’t think anyone would argue that the Nazi regime would have been altogether wrong if their science really did prove that Jews were not human beings at all. But there is also the possibility of self deception, and other distorting motives. And I think most feel sure that something like this was happening with the leaders of the Third Reich, who made appeals to faulty science rather that to construct a "new morality". quote: Indeed they haven’t left town. But I do think I’ve accounted for them. Moral disagreement and confusion do fit within the framework I’ve presented. And what I’m saying is in no way a reductionistic attempt to tidy up all moral questions like this. I concede that other disciplines must be brought to bear on issues of applied ethics. My claim though, is that the universal similarity of moral appeal among people is evidence of a God given, transcendent law, that we sinful human beings both cling to, invariably appeal to, and chaff against. It is a signpost, certainly not a destination. To think of it as a destination, or a means to tie up all issues, would be to confuse theology with moralism. quote: I’m sorry Bob, but I just love to bully you. I’ll never accuse you of bullying me, as you’ve done me. But I will point out, for your own consideration, that an obscurantist method can be just as unyielding (even dogmatic) as a pedantic one. It’s at least as easy for you to say “You haven’t explained enough” when someone has explained a good deal, as it is for someone to say “I have explained” when they actually haven’t at all. So it’s better to drop any stones that are likely to hit both our houses. quote: Thanks Bob, I’ll take a look when I can. After Brad’s video at some point? Why can’t I get paid for doing this?? lol. Stephen |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Bob, What is your definition of morality? Ron, What do you agree with? What do you disagree with? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad: quote: Questioning morals in a secular viewpoint goes back to David Hume at least. And ever since Darwin there's been a steady of flow of discussion about the topic. It is talked of by Spencer and Huxley. And Moore's naturalistic fallacy addresses it. Francis Crick made explicit statements of the kind you say are usually limited to Christian apologists. In more recent times there is Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Michael Ruse, and others who have written about it. It's at least safe to say that many of our greatest thinkers thought the justification of morals as necessary. But, if some aren't talking about it, I wonder if it's not simply a resignation to the irrationality (in a secular sense) of morality ... and a willingness to take our conditioning toward moral thought simply as that, a conditioning. quote: You say that I conflate identity and origin. At the same time, you may be conflating description and explanation. You mention "feeling" in love, in spite of the chemical analysis a neuro-scientist might give. But it is interesting that you use the word "feeling". We all know feeling may be wrong. At least for many, whenever such description has been offered as explanation, there is a subversion of our feelings about the matter. In other words, I am free to question whether the "feelings" associated with love are supported by the explanations I've been given. Origin, in many cases, does indeed matter. We can describe a love letter in exclusively physical terms. But it does matter who wrote it. In the realities of love and morality, there is a kind of handwriting involved. Consider such subversive statements as these: "You, your joys and sorrows, your memories and your ambition, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules" (Francis Crick- 'The Astonishing Hypothesis') "Free Will is nothing more than the organized interplay of shifts of atoms ... as chance first endows them with energy to explore and then traps them in new arrangements as their energy leaps naturally and randomly away" (Peter Atkins- 'The Creation') "We may have choice about whether to do right or wrong, but we have no choice about right and wrong themselves. If morality did not have this air of externality or objectivity, it would not be morality and (from a biological perspective) would fail to do what it is intended to do...In a sense, therefore, morality is a collective illusion foisted upon us by our genes." (Michael Ruse- 'Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics: Are They in Harmony') Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Brad, The definitition of morality, when you're using a stage theory of moral development such as the one I was talking about above, changes with each level of your own development. Kohlbreg's has six, which grown progressively more interactive and then independant as the person grows in his or her ability to reflect on the notion of self and other. In the early stages, there is virtually no ability to understand the notion of other at all and the only way of mediating moral behavior is through force and obligation, as in, I do this because if I don't do this I will be punished if I am caught, and I don't want to experience pain, and I am not to blame for anything, other people force me to do things. A murderer at this stage once told me of the teeth that he had extracted from a woman he had killed, "She was my friend; she gave them to me." He was not lying, he meant this quite literally. This was how he constructed the situation. He felt no moral responsibility for his own actions, even for extracting her teeth after she had died. He ascribed volition to her even after her death because he could not cognitively hold in his head a construction where he held moral awareness of responsibility for his actions. Yet this is where we all start. Moral constructions become more complex from that point on, paralleling evolution in ego development. See Jane Loevinger for that material, as you would want to see Lawrence Kohlberg for the moral development material. I'm a bit behind the curve here, but that's the basic stuff. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Thanks, Bob. I am somewhat, very somewhat, acquainted with stage theory and knew that first stage. The whole thing sounds interesting and I may pursue that in a few months. But my question was what was your definition of morality? In other words, do you buy it? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Yeah, I do buy the Kohlberg Stage theory of moral development, and the Loevinger theory of Ego Development. I find them flexible and reasonably understandable, and I find them a good explanation for why people who mean well can't make hide nor hair out of more complex levels of either cognitive or moral thinking. These stage theorists are quick to tell us that we shouldn't take the stages as "more advanced," but simply as more complex, but then none of them, you'll notice, like to think of themselves as any of the less complex folks. And all of them are very careful to say that they NOT level Six folks like, and then they mention a laundry list of dazzling folks that they'd clearly drool all over themselves to be. It's like getting a chance to ask Martin Luther, "Yeah, tell me again why you think you know better than the Pope what the real message that Jesus had to offer was? It wouldn't be because you might have, on some level, IDENTIFIED WITH HIM, would it?" Church lady voice here, of course. But the truth is, if you aren't cognitively complex enough to follow the thinking of somebody half a stage more complex than you are, then the moral complexity, the moral reasoning of somebody doing the same thing is simply going to seem like word soup to you. You can't contain it in your head. It makes no sense. Be prepared for that when you look at some of the Kohlberg material. He offers a series moral situations and then asks what you would do, and how you frame them, how you think about them, and what's the correct set of actions in relation to them? You'll probably be able to find some of the questions on the net someplace, and you'll be able to see how difficult they are to grapple with, and you'll get some idea of exactly how much use logic is in grappling with them, and in explaining your reasoning to other people. Here is a link to one of the frequently used stories used to help sort out levels of moral development in the Kohlberg schema, clearly presented and even scored in straightforward fashion by the folks at wiki. The Folks at Wiki do not emphasize strongly enough that there are no wrong answers, so I will have to do that for them. There are no wrong answers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
This is an amazing video: lion, crocodile, and the herd of buffalo |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I've been reading a bit about free will these days (again). Sam Harris has come out against it and many agree, disagree. I think Harris is wrong but it the difference is in what we mean by free will. I'll try to get back to this. quote: My response: So what? quote: This is a mistake. Free will is not the organized interplay of shifts of atoms. Free will has to do with intent. Intent is an emergent property of the organized interplay of shifts in atoms but they are not the same thing. quote: Yes, but why call it an illusion? Morality is objective because it is defined so, it does not mean that morality is external to humanity. Does it work? Does it allow us to live our lives more easily? If the answer is yes, then it is not an illusion. If the answer is no, then it is. Illusion: quote: I do not see how these definitions apply to morality. Morality is external to the individual but it is not external to relationships that that individual participates in. As a result, it is internalized as one participates. I'll try to get some links up for the Harris article and some of the debates about it in a bit. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Sam Harris Jerry Coyne Did freedom evolve? If you can find the time, check out the discussions. They are very good. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
I believe that free will, in the strictest sense of the term, is an illusion. An imaginary trip in the TARDIS makes that conclusion unavoidable. . |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
Does the weather have free will? Suppose for a second that you had a time machine similar to the TARDIS, that allowed you to go back in time but only gave you ability to see the past and not interact with it - a read only view if you will. Now suppose that yesterday it rained at three o'clock. If you went back in time to yesterday would it still rain a three o'clock? Is raining at three o'clock yesterday a fixed event after the fact? Now using your TARDIS go back to the day before yesterday, will it rain tomorrow at three o'clock? If you believe that raining at three o'clock yesterday is a fixed event then the answer has to be yes and if that's true nothing can be done to alter the weather yesterday at three o'clock. Now take it up a notch. Yesterday at three o'clock a man gets caught in the rain, if you go back to the day before and observe him for 24 hours will he get caught in the rain yesterday at three o'clock? Could the man make a free choice not to go out or to carry an umbrella and avoid getting drenched to the bone or is the event unavoidable? If he can is the fact that it rained at three o'clock yesterday still a fixed event after the fact when you step out of the TARDIS after your trip? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I love Dr. Who. My kids and I just watched an episode this evening. But I fail to see the relevance for free will. I was going to start by asking what you meant by a strict definition of free will but for the moment I'll assume you mean the question: But could it have been otherwise? If the parameters, the causal framework, are exactly the same, the answer is no. That doesn't change the fact of free will. The choices made were causally determined but identity is still causally determined by the same framework. The whole idea of free will by this definition doesn't make any sense. I'm rushing here so I'll probably have to come back to this. The Tardis jump was already a part of the causal framework. If the parameters are different, then change is possible. We don't know what would happen next and whatever future knowledge claimed is as good as our everyday predictions. Because the parameters are different, you no longer know the future and identity, the will, is no longer the same in the previous case. To think otherwise is to fall into a dualism. If so, from whence comes identity? Anything, I contend, that starts with this idea of free will is incoherent. Unfortunately to my mind, this is often what's called "real" free will. Far better to assume a choice (freedom), a will (multiple or even conflicting desires), and the ability to act without coercion on that desire by making the choice. That's free will and I'm frankly at a loss to understand why so many intelligent people don't see it my way. Harris makes a mistake here by falling back into dualism. I also contend that if my version of free will is "unsatisfying" (essentially my view is Dennett's sans the evolution spin), it is unsatisfying because you harbor dualistic intuitions. We have free will, we are condemned to it. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: Using thought experiments such as the TARDIS example I gave is fairly common when trying to explain/discuss the consequence argument in relation to question of free will. For a start it allows you to recognise that while the possible choices may be myriad the probability is that no real choice exists. My definition of free will BTW would be the ability to independently choose and instigate a first cause in a series of causal events. . |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Yeah, I know. But the time travel experiments make the same mistake that philosophical zombie arguments make (the idea of people with no inner states). They try to make an almost-same situation into an exactly-same situation and that's the problem. How could people be uncaused? How could they make a decision without their causal background. What language would they speak? Would they prefer potatoes or rice, coke or pepsi, men or women, green or red? Maybe I've got a blind spot here but I just can't see how metaphysical free will makes any sense. At the same time, I don't see any reason to get rid of the real need to make conscious choices in our everyday life. And we call that free will, don't we? |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: In my opinion, they can't - but neither can they be the instigator of a first cause - physical or metaphysical. quote: You wouldn't be alone. The concepts and ideas behind incompatibilism and the illusion of free will are even less intuitive than the concepts and ideas behind the theory of natural selection. Look how many people had a blind spot for that and for how long. How many still do? That doesn't mean the theory is wrong though. The only way to understand free will is to break it up into pieces, it's far too complex to approach as a single overarching system. A good place to start is to look at how people make choices, ironically that will bring you nicely back to the subject of morallity. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well said. Do we disagree? |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: Probably not but it's hard to tell at this point - the jury is still out. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Nine years later, Uncas, and you're still not convinced? I think your TARDIS thought experiment is flawed on numerous levels. First, you're assuming the past is immutable. There's no hard evidence to support that assumption and a fair number of multi-verse theories to contradict it. More importantly, though, you're assuming that if the past is indeed immutable, then the future must also be immutable. There's no evidence at all to support that assumption, hard or otherwise. Indeed, you seem to be playing willy-nilly with the Arrow of Time; don't you want to also shoot your grandfather to see what other paradoxes might arise? To me, Uncas, here's the crux of your argument: "Yesterday at three o'clock a man gets caught in the rain, if you go back to the day before and observe him for 24 hours will he get caught in the rain yesterday at three o'clock? Could the man make a free choice not to go out or to carry an umbrella and avoid getting drenched to the bone or is the event unavoidable?" Could the man make a free choice? He already did. Free will granted him the ability to choose. But nothing guarantees him the ability to unchoose. We each make our choices, of our own free will, and then we accept the consequences of those choices and assume responsibility for the future those choices necessarily shape. To believe otherwise is to abrogate personal responsibility for our choices. Your argument, were it valid, leads directly to the zealot who screams, "God made me do!" Or the devil. Or predeterminism. Or Mommy and Daddy, or any of a hundred similarly easy answers. Free will is nothing more or less than the ability to make choices. It doesn't mean choice without influence, it doesn't even mean choice without coercion, and it certainly doesn't mean choice without consequence. Not only does everyone have free will, no one can easily escape it. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: I think I have the same problem I had nine years ago Ron - clearly explaining what I mean. quote: You see to me that isn't the crux, the crux is why he made that specific choice and whether any other choice was possible. If the scenario and conditions are exactly the same, if the man has the same life experience the same ethical values, available data (flawed or otherwise), upbringing, genes, etc. etc. the resultant choice would be the same. He would in effect always make the same decision and he'd always get drenched. Were there other possible options? Sure, thousands if not millions but that man at that point, all things being equal, would make the same choice on every replay. The fact that there were millions of possibilities doesn't equate to a real choice if the output is always going to be the same. Of all the possible numbers my calculator could display it has no choice but to display 3 when I enter 1+2. quote: The idea that determinism destroys the concept of responsibility is a red herring Ron, for two reasons: The first is that even if responsibility for the ultimate action doesn't reside with the individual the inputs and data that led to that action are the individuals responsibility - "I broke the speed limit because I didn't know the speed limit" is a simple example. The second is that you're arguing that something can't be right because if it were it would open up a can of worms and possibly cause a whole lot of problems. Is that a valid argument? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Our mind and arts take "snapshots" and make pictures, which capture how the present formerly was (past) or else try to predict how the present will be (future), but time itself is never in such a frozen-like state. It is always the present. It is always changing; including our choices. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: I think that is true. The key is that they never are exactly the same though. That is why there is always a difference. The present (including emotions, thoughts, morals, etc. as well) are always changing in one way or another. Therefore he is "free" from making the same choice over and over again by the very fact that things change and don't ever stay exactly the same. But I would argue he is not free from being bound to change! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: If you want to posit that calculators have neither free will nor responsibility stemming from free will, you won't get an argument from me. Having never made a single "choice" in its entire existence, the inputs and data are out of its control. That is NOT true for a human being. If your buddy with the lead foot doesn't know the speed limit, his lack of knowledge is a direct result of choices he's made in the past. The speeder, unlike the calculator, is responsible for his inputs and data. quote: Actually, it sort of does, at least in sense that a wave doesn't have a specific location. Thus we end up with weird, non-intuitive stuff like quantum tunneling and entanglement. quote: How so? Knowing that something has a cause (and I'm not entirely willing to grant cause and effect as an axiom) doesn't eliminate choice. quote: No, the probability doesn't stem from inexact criteria; the Uncertainty Principle means that everything is at best only a probability. The Uncertainty Principle guarantees that you can NEVER start with exactly the same inputs and data a second time. That's true of everything, though it doesn't always matter at the macro level, but it's especially true of things like human beings that are constantly in flux, constantly evolving into something new. Even setting aside Heisenberg for a moment (and I hate to introduce a different, potentially distracting point), you can't do it a second time because the first time changed things. quote: Computers, like calculators, are stupid, do only what they're told, and probably don't have free will. At least not yet. Just for the sake of argument, Uncas, let's agree that you somehow "could" run your wet pedestrian through the same exact scenario again and again. It can't be a function of time travel, read-only or otherwise, because Your position is that the man would always make exactly the same decisions, thereby turning free will into an illusion. My position is two-fold. First, if we agree to your experiment, we can't limit it to just one rainy day occurrence. We have to rerun every single event that happened in that man's entire life, from way before his birth right up to the first rain drop landing on his brow. Every choice he's ever made, as well as any choices made by others who touched his life, has to be similarly put on rewind. Are you really so confident that every event since the Big Bang will play out exactly as it did the first time? I certainly don't think it would, Heisenberg doesn't think it would, and I suspect most of the proponents of string theory don't think so either. Second, even if there is no multi-verse of possibilities, even if everything that has ever happened was preordained and immutable, I still don't believe it would necessarily negate the reality of free will. Knowing the past doesn't mean that the choices we made in the past were dictated by fate. Knowing those choices can't be changed doesn't mean we didn't agonize over all the important ones. Knowing that we made the only choice that we could make doesn't mean we aren't responsible for those choices. Free will isn't about what others do, not those around and not even the universe. Free will, I believe, is about what each of us chooses to do at any given moment. Even if the Universe has already mapped out all of those choices, they're still OUR choices. [This message has been edited by Ron (06-12-2011 05:07 PM).] |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: Absolutely true but you can assign responsibility for having flawed inputs and data, if I hit 1+3 on the calculator instead of 1+2 the calculator has no choice but to output 4 without any corresponding responsibility for the output. Determinism doesn't abrogate responsibility, it just shifts it. In the case of breaking the speed limit the responsibility is on the driver to know the speed limit, it would be exactly the same if the driver had false data - if he thought the speed limit was 70 not 50. quote: But the chaos is only illusionary due to the inability to know all the possible inputs and data, if you had all the possible data, including the flight paths of all errant butterflies, predicting the weather would be a breeze (probably with short intervals of rain). Even if we can't know all the necessary information though that doesn't mean that determinism is wrong, it just means that it's harder to explain. Heisenberg? The uncertainty principle says that we cannot know both the position and velocity of an object at any given moment but it doesn't say that the object doesn't have a specific position and velocity, and fortunately we don't need to know the position and velocity to accept it as one causal domino on the way to determinism. In fact you could take that one step further and say that the act of attempting to measure the object is yet simply another domino. quote: Yes, a re-run without the exact criteria will result in an approximate probability - but my point was that given the exact same inputs and data the result would show no deviation - the result would be exactly the same time after time. Imagine for a second that you could download the sum total of knowledge the umbrella man possesses into a computer and repeatedly asked the same question, the answer from the millions of possibilities would always be the same as the TARDIS example. . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: If you want to posit that calculators have neither free will nor responsibility stemming from free will, you won't get an argument from me. Having never made a single "choice" in its entire existence, the inputs and data are out of its control. That is NOT true for a human being. If your buddy with the lead foot doesn't know the speed limit, his lack of knowledge is a direct result of choices he's made in the past. The speeder, unlike the calculator, is responsible for his inputs and data. quote: Actually, it sort of does, at least in sense that a wave doesn't have a specific location. Thus we end up with weird, non-intuitive stuff like quantum tunneling and entanglement. quote: How so? Knowing that something has a cause (and I'm not entirely willing to grant cause and effect as an axiom) doesn't eliminate choice. quote: No, the probability doesn't stem from inexact criteria; the Uncertainty Principle means that everything is at best only a probability. The Uncertainty Principle guarantees that you can NEVER start with exactly the same inputs and data a second time. That's true of everything, though it doesn't always matter at the macro level, but it's especially true of things like human beings that are constantly in flux, constantly evolving into something new. Even setting aside Heisenberg for a moment (and I hate to introduce a different, potentially distracting point), you can't do it a second time because the first time changed things. quote: Computers, like calculators, are stupid, do only what they're told, and probably don't have free will. At least not yet. Just for the sake of argument, Uncas, let's agree that you somehow "could" run your wet pedestrian through the same exact scenario again and again. It can't be a function of time travel, read-only or otherwise, because Your position is that the man would always make exactly the same decisions, thereby turning free will into an illusion. My position is two-fold. First, if we agree to your experiment, we can't limit it to just one rainy day occurrence. We have to rerun every single event that happened in that man's entire life, from way before his birth right up to the first rain drop landing on his brow. Every choice he's ever made, as well as any choices made by others who touched his life, has to be similarly put on rewind. Are you really so confident that every event since the Big Bang will play out exactly as it did the first time? I certainly don't think it would, Heisenberg doesn't think it would, and I suspect most of the proponents of string theory don't think so either. Second, even if there is no multi-verse of possibilities, even if everything that has ever happened was preordained and immutable, I still don't believe it would necessarily negate the reality of free will. Knowing the past doesn't mean that the choices we made in the past were dictated by fate. Knowing those choices can't be changed doesn't mean we didn't agonize over all the important ones. Knowing that we made the only choice that we could make doesn't mean we aren't responsible for those choices. Free will isn't about what others do, not those around us and not even the universe. Free will, I believe, is about what each of us chooses to do at any given moment. Even if the Universe has already mapped out all of those choices, they're still OUR choices. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: Not necessarily, it could be that he made a choice not to read the highway code but it could equally be true that he did read the highway code but failed to remember the speed limit - or misread it quote: Agreed absolutely - The calculator example was flawed. The speeder is responsible for data (or lack of data) he uses to reach a decision but the causal chain isn't necessarily the result of a choice (see above). quote: Bingo! The TARDIS thought experiment guarantees all that, forget that time travel might not be possible, that even if it were causality might be affected, it's a thought experiment so you can suspend disbelief on those points. If you could go back and re-run the event in view only mode the sum total of the man's life up to that point would already have occurred, every event in the history of the universe up to that point would also have occurred in exactly the same way it did the first time. Given that absolutely nothing had changed, I believe that his decision, seemingly made freely, would be precisely the same. At the point he made the choice not to take an umbrella there were a million possibilities and exactly zero chance of him choosing anything but not taking the umbrella. How can we be sure? Because that's exactly what he did yesterday. quote: Yes - because it did. The confusion here I think is the concept of 'the first time' and 're-run', the re-run is the first time Ron the TARDIS simply allows you to go back to view it. If the man has free will, the ability to choose between multiple possibilities, then each time you go back there's every possibility that his choice is different. If determinism is true his choice is governed by who he is and the sum total of every cause and event that preceded that point in time and he has no real choice free or otherwise - only the illusion of choice in hindsight. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You're still stuck in an immutable past, Uncas. Last year your immutable past was a very mutable future and the man could indeed have made any one of a number of choices. That he made the one that you now remember is no indication he was fated to make it. At the time the choice was made, it was still a choice, an act of free will. That the choice can't be unmade doesn't negate that. quote: Go back? Again, it sounds a lot like you're still stuck on a time line, Uncas? quote: But what if the Tardis doesn't "go back," Uncas? What if M Theory is correct and your Tardis is actually skipping through an infinite array of parallel universes where anything that could happen has happened? What would you expect to see then? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Put it this way: What part of the universe had more control over him at the time, he himself or something else? If he did, then how could it not be a choice? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Beg pardon, I'm not mathematical, and the theory here may be above my head, but I recall, I believe, that experimental tests of Heisenberg's theory were done, and that the photon did not always do the same thing, sometimes strolling through one gate, sometimes the other and, if my memory serves, occasionally through both and providing a diffraction pattern indicating it interfered with itself. Do you gentlemen have any recollection of such work? As I said, I'm not mathematical, but such data would seem to raise some interesting questions if accurate, and presuming either of you has any recollection of running across anything like it. The discussion of free will in the way that you are discussing it seems to be fated to run across paradox traps. Russell suggests that such traps might be resolved by looking for inadvertent mistakes in levels of abstraction. Can God create a stone too heavy for God to lift it? is only a paradox if you assume that the sentence is the same as the reality; and, in this case, that remains to be seen. A hypothetical case is not a real case. The menu is not the meal. First show me that stone fitting the requirements that God has created; and then we'll talk about the rest of it. Free will adheres to consciousness, doesn't it? What the photon does, chosing one or another gate, appears to be connected to the observer, that person overseeing the experiment. Does God count as an observer? What kind of observation creates an observer effect? Does this mean that the random effect of photons going through the gates on a diffration grating are the artifacts of the consciousness of God, and were God not paying attention, the distribution would be different? Is this God's way of keeping things on the up and up? And is the change away from randomness that comes from conscious observation an artifact of free will, man exerting himself in the universe? Just thought I'd raise some questions. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: But what this implies is that free will must not be the will doing the choosing. It has to be something else. My answer is no it wouldn't have changed and that choice was still free. True, taking quantum mechanics into account makes an exact rewind impossible but that's an argument against determinism, not for or against free will. Look at it this way: Could it have been otherwise? Could he have chosen differently? The moment you use "otherwise" or "differently", the moment you are adding knowledge to the scenario and that changes things. This is not a bad thing. It's very good for it allows us to expand the parameters of the choice itself and for the next choice. It increases our freedom. Computers, protists, fungi, and insects do not have this freedom. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Wow, I had forgotten I posted that last post. Anyway, is that clear? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
It's very clear that you've posted the last post ... er, wait a minute ... |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
