Laurentius

AVE


Humans are defined by their actions.

An action refers to the process, limited in time, of achieving a goal that is consciously clearly formulated. Actions include 4 distinct elements:
(a) the actor (an individual or a group) that carries out the action;
(b) the circumstance in which the action is carried out;
(c) the objective towards which the action is oriented;
(d) the modality used by the actor to carry out the objective, given the circumstance.
The actor and the circumstances are the ontological grounds for the goal and the modality to reach it.

Besides these intrinsic constituents, when analyzing actions one should also take into consideration the following 3 extrinsic broader frameworks:
(a) the social nature of the action – actions occur within a specific social context, expressing a certain configuration of social forces and organization (a certain social order will trigger a specific code of behavior);
(b) the double nature, conscious/spontaneous, of the action – both consciousness and unconsciousness play key roles in performing any action (the preponderance of certain instinctual manifestations will trigger a specific morality);
(c) the cultural nature of the action – human behavior is shaped by the cultural structure of the community (a certain view on the world will trigger a specific set of ethical norms).

What causes an action to occur? A simple answer could be that intellect and emotion come to expression in volition and action.
Actions can be viewed as the territory where the ontological mingles with the ethical, as the three (existent) theories below infer:
(a) actions are events produced by:
___ (i) volitions or acts of will or;
___ (ii) beliefs and desires or;
___ (iii) persons or agents.
(b) actions are events that are "caused" in a special sense because:
___ (i) they have a teleological rather than an efficient or mechanical cause, or
___ (ii) they have an immanent (or originating) cause rather than one that is merely a reaction to, or modification of, an action coming from some other source.
(c) actions are events that are properly characterized and assessed in terms of rules of conduct, or principles of rational and ethical behavior, and for which the agent is held responsible, liable, accountable, to be praised or blamed, rewarded or punished.

As far as I am concerned, I consider human beings indisputably capable of free will. I mean, any theory of action is expected to talk about free will. I think that free will is compatible with determinism, but I do not want to wrangle over this issue here. What I wish to point out is that if one holds that an action is not free, he/she will mean that it has causes that eventually lie outside the agent. If his/her denial of free will is a strong one, he/she will hold both the following:
(a) an action is an event produced by volitions or beliefs and desires;
(b) volitions or beliefs and desires themselves have causes that lie outside the agent.

Given the nature of actions as exposed above, I think it is clear that, whether or not one believes in free will, actions will remain the area where ontology and morality meet, where the philosophy of nature and the theory of ethics merge.

AVE

Laurentius

AVE

Well, my post must have been either hermetic or dull, or both, if everyone just let it slide down.

Maybe I should have mentioned that I brought up this topic remembering the replies one co-poster gave me recently:

You can always try building a new central foundation for your ethics, but I do not think you can ever derive the "should" of humanism from the "is" of atheism.

It's quite possible to build up a good system of descriptive ethical tendencies, based on the statistical tendencies of humans in various social systems and eras. I myself every now and then expand on objective elements in human tendencies that underlie the further built-up system of general human ethics.

However, you still cannot derive a prescriptive system from that - understand ? - all you can hope to do is build political rhetoric that will sway people, and that has to be closely scrutinized.


The nature of human actions should show that "what it is" always determines "what should be".

AVE

Bill

Laurentius:

I will personally vote for "dull."

You assert that you are a compatiblist on the issue of "free will" versus "determinism." That is about the most controversial assertion you make, so far as I can ascertain the matter. But you indicate that you did not begin this thread in order to take on a debate about "free will." What, then, is left of your assertions?

That behaviors (or "actions") have causes is indisputible. It is also indisputible that they also have results (or "effects").

If I wanted to dispute what you are saying, I would take issue with this assertion as an oversimplification: An action can also be "instinctual." In that sense, such an action is caused by some form of "pre-programming" that arrives in the package of DNA that we inherit from our parents.

I take the deterministic view of human action. And I hold with both of the assertions that you mention, so long as you modify (a) to include instinctual actions.

As a framework for studying how "volitions or beliefs and desires themselves have causes that lie outside the agent," I would probably tend to assert that something in sociology or memetics would explain those causes and effects that produce our volitions, beliefs, and/or desires which are not a function of "instinct." But once you add "instinct" into the picture, and understand "instinct" as being passed through some sort of genetic programming, then it should be a lot easier to see that, in fact, all "volitions or beliefs and desires themselves have causes that lie outside the agent."

But you stated that you really didn't create this post for the purpose of starting a discussion on determinism. So, the only argument I can readily frame out of your post is excluded by the conditions of your posting.

As for the rest of what you posted, I'm somewhat at a loss as to what you felt was in some way "controversial" so as to be worth beginning a discussion thread. Perhaps you have a point here that I'm totally missing?

== Bill

Laurentius

AVE


Bill

I will personally vote for "dull."


Oh, good. I was afraid I might be hermetic.

In brief,
There’s Man and the environment.
Culture and civilization is Man’s response to the environment.
Philosophy is part of this response.

In any human being there are at least rudiments of some philosophy.
Everyone’s philosophy becomes apparent in his/her actions.
The nature of actions shows that, practically speaking, ontology and ethics are closely linked:
(a) ontology determines whether one should act or not,
(b) ontology determines how one should act, and,
(c) ontology determines to what avail one should act.

So, ontology triggers ethics.

AVE

Laurentius

All these are plain and self-evident, to some extent. So:
general rule -> Ontology triggers Ethics.
particular case -> Atheism triggers Humanism.

AVE

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I believe in free will.

Anyone who doesn't, is more than welcome to try to convince me to change my mind.

Keith.

John Page

Did you know you were going to type this information in before you did it?

Cheers, John

Keith Russell

John:

I knew I could type the information, but I often revise, edit, and or delete postings, before I press the 'submit' button.

I wasn't sure that I was going to leave this as it was, and submit it, until I chose to press the submit button.

If there is no free will, and I believe in free will, then I have no choice about believing in it.

And I'd love for someone, who doesn't believe in free will, to try to convince me otherwise.

Keith.