Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kip · 07-24-2002, 08:50 PM

Quote:

So, compatiblilism is the idea that we have free will within the bounds of our personal reality? For instance, to continue the Hitler analogy, he had the choice to either lead Germany out of the depression and be a peaceful nation or to make it into the war machine that he did (obviously he would have more choices available to him than that, but it can be simplified this way). He was constrained by the reality of the situation, but he could make choices within those constraints. Is that accurate?

Compatilism is the idea that both determinism is true and that humans possess free will. Compatibilists may dramatically alter the definition of "free will" however (but redefining the problem does not solve it).

Quote:

Isn't it a wrong to hate him or anyone else for the atrocities they commit? If determinism is correct, hating Hitler for carrying out the holocaust would be like hating your computer because you downloaded a virus. It's not the computer's fault, it's the environment it was exposed to. Similarly, I can't understand why anyone could get angry at Hitler when it was actually his environment that's at fault.

From what Kip posted, it seems that this is an accurate observation. If determinism holds true, the concept of morality is useless.

The moral problem you argue is exactly the controversy. There is long and distinguished history of philosophers arguing both positions and neither has approached definite victory.

This link should help:

<a href="http://www.xrefer.com/entry/551803" target="_blank">http://www.xrefer.com/entry/551803</a>

Quote:

I'd never really given any of the claims that the fundies have made any thought, but this one is starting to make me wonder. They constantly make the claim that it's impossible to be moral without a god and, while I don't agree with that in the slightest, if determinism is right it's impossible to be moral at all.

Yes, even if God exists, that is no solution to this problem. This is the question Socrates posed in the Euthyphro "is something good because God says so or is does God say so because something is good." If the former, morality is God's arbitrary whim, and there could be no difference between an evil God and a good God, there is only God and whatever he dictates. If the latter, how could we ever verify that God's commandments are in accordance with this external morality? If we could verify God's morality, God would be obsolete, and if we could not verify, we could never know that God's commandments were truly moral. All of these problems so that the existence of God does not help our moral ambiguity at all.

That said, allow me to testify that personally, I have considered the controversy for a while and I am convinced that libertarianism must be false. I also consider acknowledging this fact to be one of the most challenging and rewarding philosophical tasks one can accomplish because we have such a natural prejudice towards the idea that we are free. We surely feel free. Although some events may not be determined (such as the randomness of quantum phenomena, although I suspect that such randomness only reveals our ignorance) the idea that humans do not bahave according to rules is inevitably nonsense. Furthermore, determinism is not another moral problem but the solution to all of the moral problems mentioned. If determinism was false, we would be forced to answer the impossible question of "how do I live" without knowing what is right and wrong. But because determinism is true, we do not have to answer that question. We simply live. Our life is revealed to us and we participate in the mystery. That is my own position at least.

DRFseven · 07-25-2002, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Trekkie: Isn't it a wrong to hate him or anyone else for the atrocities they commit? If determinism is correct, hating Hitler for carrying out the holocaust would be like hating your computer because you downloaded a virus. It's not the computer's fault, it's the environment it was exposed to. Similarly, I can't understand why anyone could get angry at Hitler when it was actually his environment that's at fault.

From what Kip posted, it seems that this is an accurate observation. If determinism holds true, the concept of morality is useless.

I'd never really given any of the claims that the fundies have made any thought, but this one is starting to make me wonder. They constantly make the claim that it's impossible to be moral without a god and, while I don't agree with that in the slightest, if determinism is right it's impossible to be moral at all.

Yet, determinists undeniably behave morally all the time. If behavior worked in the way you seem to be suggesting, wouldn't you expect those of us who are determinists to have no moral compass? The truth is, we are no more exempt from causation than anyone else, and because humans have evolved with the capacity to acquire emotionally-based opinions of right and wrong, we are thus motivated to act on those opinions.

People get angry at anything, even inanimate objects; learning the mechanisms of thought and behavior will not prevent anger or any other emotion. We realize, even as we hold people accountable, that in so doing, are actions are serving as a counter force against whatever the behavior is that spurs our anger or hurt or outrage.

DRFseven · 07-25-2002, 05:57 AM

Beautiful posts, Kip!

Trekkie With a Phaser · 07-25-2002, 12:12 PM

Kip, thank you for clearing up many of my questions. Also, thank you for posting that link. The site is excellent and has information on several different aspects of this topic that I'm interested in.

DRFseven, thank you for clearing up some of the moral problems I saw with determinism. I was thinking that it would be wrong to hate anyone for anything they've done, but I hadn't considered that hatred and disgust for an unjust act could actually act as a cause to stop it.

I think I'm going to have to take more time to consider the differing view points and any available evidence before I take a stance on determinism. In any event, you've all given me a lot to think about. Thanks again!

Plump-DJ · 08-11-2002, 08:08 AM

Tron wrote..

Quote:

Now, how can someone be held responsible for their actions? They can be held responsible for their actions because they are the human link in the causal chain. We condemn Hitler as an "evil" man because he chose to have acts we consider "evil" carried out, not despite the fact that his choice has a causal explanation, but because of the fact that his choice has a causal explanation. If there was no explanation for his choice, how could he be held responsible? It would just be bad luck - something that could have happened to anyone.

Right.. i don't know if i'm following this. Are you saying that Hitler was being condemened for something he chose to do? I really think the underlying explanation has everything to do with our claim to moral right and wrong. The whole system seems to be based around a choice, with the choice to act wrong or right being the important part. If determinism is true their is no real choice per say, is there? So i can't see how we can condem Hitler??

Theli · 08-12-2002, 04:50 AM

Obviously, if Hitler's actions was (if all actions was) "determined", then when we condemn his actions we also condemn the "determined" factors that led to his actions as they are a part of him. Does it matter if they were determined or not?
It would be like saying that we couldn't blame Hitler because he was just a cluster of particles at the time and we can't blame particles, can we?

One thing I've wondered about determinism is where does the new info/complexity come from?
If determinism is true then that info must have existed at the creation of the universe or have an unknown external source, but didn't take form until a certain point in the universe's evolution.
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Theli · 08-12-2002, 04:55 AM

Quote:

If determinism is true their is no real choice per say, is there? So i can't see how we can condem Hitler??

If determinism was true, then how can we choose to condemn Hitler?
If we don't make the choice, then how do we observe the cause->effect of that choice?
I can't shake the contradiction between not making a choice and observing oneself making a choice (thinking).

WJ · 08-12-2002, 05:53 AM

Theli/Trekkie!

"Obviously, if Hitler's actions was (if all actions was) "determined", then when we condemn his actions we also condemn the "determined" factors that led to his actions as they are a part of him."

In ethics, yes, you can condemn the 'determined' factors, otherwise known as evil. The illusion of free-will in the face of ethics means that we are free to make choices from the entire list of possible choices. All possoble choices are basically mappings that are pre-determined from human nature. What you have from the mappings in your consciousness and conscience is good and evil. If you make choices that are based upon a certain type of evil, then you do things like Hitler and kill people, etc..

In ethics then, you have a cause [good/evil] and an effect. And those are completely determined by our will to make choices.

Walrus

Theli · 08-12-2002, 09:08 AM

WJ...

I don't think you should include good and evil into ethics. Most crimes are made out of necessity, and to label actions with "good" or "evil" is to dismiss that.
I'm not saying that Hitler definately had some necessity behind his deeds, but it is no reason to adapt a black and white viewpoint.
For instance: A kid who grows up getting abused by his parents becomes a rapist, was his choice one of good and evil? Did he have the same chance of becoming "good" as a kid who grew up by loving parents, friends, brothers and sisters?
From my experience there is no such thing as good or evil, not any absolutes anyway...

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

WJ · 08-12-2002, 11:27 AM

Theli!

You had said: "I don't think you should include good and evil into ethics. Most crimes are made out of necessity, and to label actions with "good" or "evil" is to dismiss that.
I'm not saying that Hitler definately had some necessity behind his deeds, but it is no reason to adapt a black and white viewpoint.
For instance: A kid who grows up getting abused by his parents becomes a rapist, was his choice one of good and evil? Did he have the same chance of becoming "good" as a kid who grew up by loving parents, friends, brothers and sisters?
From my experience there is no such thing as good or evil, not any absolutes anyway..."

1. Perhaps it's all about semantics. Change good/evil to good/bad you get the same result. Does that make you feel more comfortable?

2. You might be trying to make it more complicated that it need be. Unfortunately, the rapist's choice was determined by many factors, nevertheless, it remains a choice based upon the determined forces of goo/bad, if you will. That might be the 'necessity' you refer to. If all people had to have a disfunctional childhood in order to become devient or otherwise a rapist, then your argument for 'necessity' would make sense. I'm interpreting necessity as it refers to basic (intrinsic) human qualities. Ethically, those are absolutes.

3. As far as the kid having a 'chance' like others, indeed our choices are colored by our environment, but the illusion of choice in ethics represents the indeterminate nature of two possible outcomes or effects, both resulting from similar causes. That is why 2 different people who have similar backgrounds and upbringing can have opposite effects as in one chooses not to murder while the other one murders.

My question for you would be, are you denying the basic existence of the 'opposites' 'good/bad' as a matter of choice from all possible mappings (causes)? (Or are you trying to suggest you can choose be a little good and a little bad at the same time but never one or the other?)

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-25-2002, 05:57 AM	#13
DRFseven Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,322	Beautiful posts, Kip!

07-25-2002, 12:12 PM	#14
Trekkie With a Phaser Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: California Posts: 62	Kip, thank you for clearing up many of my questions. Also, thank you for posting that link. The site is excellent and has information on several different aspects of this topic that I'm interested in. DRFseven, thank you for clearing up some of the moral problems I saw with determinism. I was thinking that it would be wrong to hate anyone for anything they've done, but I hadn't considered that hatred and disgust for an unjust act could actually act as a cause to stop it. I think I'm going to have to take more time to consider the differing view points and any available evidence before I take a stance on determinism. In any event, you've all given me a lot to think about. Thanks again!

08-12-2002, 04:50 AM	#16
Theli Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,567	Obviously, if Hitler's actions was (if all actions was) "determined", then when we condemn his actions we also condemn the "determined" factors that led to his actions as they are a part of him. Does it matter if they were determined or not? It would be like saying that we couldn't blame Hitler because he was just a cluster of particles at the time and we can't blame particles, can we? One thing I've wondered about determinism is where does the new info/complexity come from? If determinism is true then that info must have existed at the creation of the universe or have an unknown external source, but didn't take form until a certain point in the universe's evolution. <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> [ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

08-12-2002, 05:53 AM	#18
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Theli/Trekkie! "Obviously, if Hitler's actions was (if all actions was) "determined", then when we condemn his actions we also condemn the "determined" factors that led to his actions as they are a part of him." In ethics, yes, you can condemn the 'determined' factors, otherwise known as evil. The illusion of free-will in the face of ethics means that we are free to make choices from the entire list of possible choices. All possoble choices are basically mappings that are pre-determined from human nature. What you have from the mappings in your consciousness and conscience is good and evil. If you make choices that are based upon a certain type of evil, then you do things like Hitler and kill people, etc.. In ethics then, you have a cause [good/evil] and an effect. And those are completely determined by our will to make choices. Walrus

08-12-2002, 09:08 AM	#19
Theli Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,567	WJ... I don't think you should include good and evil into ethics. Most crimes are made out of necessity, and to label actions with "good" or "evil" is to dismiss that. I'm not saying that Hitler definately had some necessity behind his deeds, but it is no reason to adapt a black and white viewpoint. For instance: A kid who grows up getting abused by his parents becomes a rapist, was his choice one of good and evil? Did he have the same chance of becoming "good" as a kid who grew up by loving parents, friends, brothers and sisters? From my experience there is no such thing as good or evil, not any absolutes anyway... [ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

08-12-2002, 11:27 AM	#20
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Theli! You had said: "I don't think you should include good and evil into ethics. Most crimes are made out of necessity, and to label actions with "good" or "evil" is to dismiss that. I'm not saying that Hitler definately had some necessity behind his deeds, but it is no reason to adapt a black and white viewpoint. For instance: A kid who grows up getting abused by his parents becomes a rapist, was his choice one of good and evil? Did he have the same chance of becoming "good" as a kid who grew up by loving parents, friends, brothers and sisters? From my experience there is no such thing as good or evil, not any absolutes anyway..." 1. Perhaps it's all about semantics. Change good/evil to good/bad you get the same result. Does that make you feel more comfortable? 2. You might be trying to make it more complicated that it need be. Unfortunately, the rapist's choice was determined by many factors, nevertheless, it remains a choice based upon the determined forces of goo/bad, if you will. That might be the 'necessity' you refer to. If all people had to have a disfunctional childhood in order to become devient or otherwise a rapist, then your argument for 'necessity' would make sense. I'm interpreting necessity as it refers to basic (intrinsic) human qualities. Ethically, those are absolutes. 3. As far as the kid having a 'chance' like others, indeed our choices are colored by our environment, but the illusion of choice in ethics represents the indeterminate nature of two possible outcomes or effects, both resulting from similar causes. That is why 2 different people who have similar backgrounds and upbringing can have opposite effects as in one chooses not to murder while the other one murders. My question for you would be, are you denying the basic existence of the 'opposites' 'good/bad' as a matter of choice from all possible mappings (causes)? (Or are you trying to suggest you can choose be a little good and a little bad at the same time but never one or the other?) <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.