The First Question Of Ethics

[RCSaunders]

Do 'you' ALWAYS consciously choose your behavior?
Do 'you' NEVER consciously choose your behavior? Or,
Do 'you' SOME times consciously choose your behavior while at OTHER times do NOT consciously choose your behavior?

Everything one must be conscious to do, they must consciously choose to do. One does not need to be conscious to breath, digest their food, pump their blood, dream, blink, move their eyes, roll over, or even to walk and talk (somnambulism). One does need to be conscious to dress themselves, prepare and eat a meal, think, go to work, play a game, argue, steal, make things or break things.

All of which is irrelevant to the question. If there are ethical principles they can only matter if human beings consciously choose their behavior. No principles are required where there are no alternatives or where no choice is possible.

[Age]

Do 'you' ALWAYS consciously choose your behavior?
Do 'you' NEVER consciously choose your behavior? Or,
Do 'you' SOME times consciously choose your behavior while at OTHER times do NOT consciously choose your behavior?

Everything one must be conscious to do, they must consciously choose to do. One does not need to be conscious to breath, digest their food, pump their blood, dream, blink, move their eyes, roll over, or even to walk and talk (somnambulism). One does need to be conscious to dress themselves, prepare and eat a meal, think, go to work, play a game, argue, steal, make things or break things.

All of which is irrelevant to the question.

If your responses are irrelevant to the question, then I suggest NOT responding that way.

You asked the question: Do individuals consciously choose their behavior? I informed you of HOW to find the answer to this question.

If there are ethical principles they can only matter if human beings consciously choose their behavior.

So, what is 'it' EXACTLY that you want to know?

Do you want to know if human beings consciously choose their behavior or not, or whether there are ethical principles or not? Or both?

No principles are required where there are no alternatives or where no choice is possible.

If you say so.

[RCSaunders]

Do 'you' ALWAYS consciously choose your behavior?
Do 'you' NEVER consciously choose your behavior? Or,
Do 'you' SOME times consciously choose your behavior while at OTHER times do NOT consciously choose your behavior?

Everything one must be conscious to do, they must consciously choose to do. One does not need to be conscious to breath, digest their food, pump their blood, dream, blink, move their eyes, roll over, or even to walk and talk (somnambulism). One does need to be conscious to dress themselves, prepare and eat a meal, think, go to work, play a game, argue, steal, make things or break things.

All of which is irrelevant to the question.

If your responses are irrelevant to the question, then I suggest NOT responding that way.

You asked the question: Do individuals consciously choose their behavior? I informed you of HOW to find the answer to this question.

If there are ethical principles they can only matter if human beings consciously choose their behavior.

So, what is 'it' EXACTLY that you want to know?

Do you want to know if human beings consciously choose their behavior or not, or whether there are ethical principles or not? Or both?

No principles are required where there are no alternatives or where no choice is possible.

If you say so.

I'm not trying to make a point. I'm interested only in what others believe about volition. I don't think your questions answer that question, but if you do, I have no objection. I was only explaining why I don't agree. I'm not interested in changing your view, only understanding what it is.

Thanks for the comments.

[Age]

Everything one must be conscious to do, they must consciously choose to do. One does not need to be conscious to breath, digest their food, pump their blood, dream, blink, move their eyes, roll over, or even to walk and talk (somnambulism). One does need to be conscious to dress themselves, prepare and eat a meal, think, go to work, play a game, argue, steal, make things or break things.

All of which is irrelevant to the question.

If your responses are irrelevant to the question, then I suggest NOT responding that way.

You asked the question: Do individuals consciously choose their behavior? I informed you of HOW to find the answer to this question.

If there are ethical principles they can only matter if human beings consciously choose their behavior.

So, what is 'it' EXACTLY that you want to know?

Do you want to know if human beings consciously choose their behavior or not, or whether there are ethical principles or not? Or both?

No principles are required where there are no alternatives or where no choice is possible.

If you say so.

I'm not trying to make a point. I'm interested only in what others believe about volition.

Okay.

But just to make it absolutely clear I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing about 'volition'.

I don't think your questions answer that question, but if you do, I have no objection. I was only explaining why I don't agree.

I do not follow how you were explaining why you do not agree.

Also, my questions, by themselves, do not answer your question. The open and honest answers to my questions is what answers your question.

I'm not interested in changing your view, only understanding what it is.

Thanks for the comments.

Okay.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This reflect badly on your ignorance of philosophy.

I'm ignorant of a lot of things, VA.
Thanks for deigning to engage such an ignorant person.

Yes, especially on on how the intuitions and emotions influenced conscious decisions, i.e. moral and otherwise.

Nothing personal. I did not consciously choose [to do or not to do it] my actions in this case to post my views, it was a spontaneous response to post what is true.

[RCSaunders]

Nothing personal. I did not consciously choose [to do or not to do it] my actions in this case to post my views, it was a spontaneous response to post what is true.

Thanks for the warning. I'm familiar with "spontaneous" eruptions like yours. I'll be careful not to step in it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Everything one must be conscious to do, they must consciously choose to do.

If there are ethical principles they can only matter if human beings consciously choose their behavior. No principles are required where there are no alternatives or where no choice is possible.

Here is one justified counter example to enlighten your ignorance.

Cooperation and Selfishness are two contrasting elements in moral issues.
Researchers has found that intuitive thinking [not deliberating consciously] is more productive in co-operation while,
reflection can undermine these cooperative impulses.

Cooperation is central to human social behaviour1–9.
However, choosing to cooperate requires individuals to incur a personal cost to benefit others.

Here we explore the cognitive basis of cooperative decision-making in humans using a dual-process framework10–18.
We ask whether people are predisposed towards selfishness, behaving cooperatively only through active self-control; or whether they are intuitively cooperative, with reflection and prospective reasoning favouring ‘rational’ self-interest.
To investigate this issue, we perform ten studies using economic games.

We find that across a range of experimental designs, subjects who reach their decisions more quickly are more cooperative.
Furthermore, forcing subjects to decide quickly increases contributions, whereas instructing them to reflect and forcing them to decide slowly decreases contributions.

Finally, an induction that primes subjects to trust their intuitions increases contributions compared with an induction that promotes greater reflection.

To explain these results, we propose that cooperation is intuitive because cooperative heuristics are developed in daily life where cooperation is typically advantageous.

We then validate predictions generated by this proposed mechanism.
Our results provide convergent evidence that intuition supports cooperation in social dilemmas, and that reflection can undermine these cooperative impulses.

https://static.squarespace.com/static/5 ... -greed.pdf

[Peter Holmes]

The first question of ethics is:

Do individuals consciously choose their behavior?

If one believes anything other than conscious choice determines their behavior ethics is meaningless. It would make no difference if one kind of behavior were preferable to another if anything other than one's own conscious choice, like instinct, the subconscious, desires or feelings, genetic or inherited proclivities, cultural, economic, or educational influences determined what one does.

It does not matter at all what is right, wrong, good, or bad if you cannot choose to do what is right and good, and you cannot choose if something other than your choice determines what you do. If there is no conscious choice, there is no such thing as good or bad anything--everything is just what it is.

This has been bugging me.

Why does it follow that, if people don't consciously choose what they do, there is no such thing as moral rightness and wrongness? Surely, all it would mean is that people aren't morally responsible for their actions.

What I mean is this: the claim 'there is no such thing as good or bad anything' assumes moral goodness and badness are things of some kind that may or may or may not exist. And that's a metaphysical delusion.

[RCSaunders]

The first question of ethics is:

Do individuals consciously choose their behavior?

If one believes anything other than conscious choice determines their behavior ethics is meaningless. It would make no difference if one kind of behavior were preferable to another if anything other than one's own conscious choice, like instinct, the subconscious, desires or feelings, genetic or inherited proclivities, cultural, economic, or educational influences determined what one does.

It does not matter at all what is right, wrong, good, or bad if you cannot choose to do what is right and good, and you cannot choose if something other than your choice determines what you do. If there is no conscious choice, there is no such thing as good or bad anything--everything is just what it is.

This has been bugging me.

Why does it follow that, if people don't consciously choose what they do, there is no such thing as moral rightness and wrongness? Surely, all it would mean is that people aren't morally responsible for their actions.

What I mean is this: the claim 'there is no such thing as good or bad anything' assumes moral goodness and badness are things of some kind that may or may or may not exist. And that's a metaphysical delusion.

That's a good question, and I understand why it is bugging you.

But how can, "the claim 'there is no such thing as good or bad anything' assumes moral goodness and badness." The claim that, "there is no good or bed," means there is no good or bad of any kind, moral or otherwise.

Of course, that is not my claim (which I actually haven't addressed). What I mean by good and bad only pertain to objectives and purposes. I do not believe in some metaphysical pipe dream of intrinsic values, only values relative to some ultimate goal or purpose. Good and bad mean good or bad to someone for something, else they mean nothing.

If one's objective is to live successfully as a human being (and nothing says it has to be) one cannot just do whatever they feel like to achieve that objective. What can and cannot be done to achieve that objective is determine by the nature of physical reality and the requirements of one's own nature as a living conscious organism.

Since I do not believe values have any meaning except in the context of beings capable of using them to make choices, if nothing makes choices, values are meaningless. What would values be for is no one could use them for anything?

That's essentially my view. It doesn't have to be yours.

[Peter Holmes]

The first question of ethics is:

Do individuals consciously choose their behavior?

If one believes anything other than conscious choice determines their behavior ethics is meaningless. It would make no difference if one kind of behavior were preferable to another if anything other than one's own conscious choice, like instinct, the subconscious, desires or feelings, genetic or inherited proclivities, cultural, economic, or educational influences determined what one does.

It does not matter at all what is right, wrong, good, or bad if you cannot choose to do what is right and good, and you cannot choose if something other than your choice determines what you do. If there is no conscious choice, there is no such thing as good or bad anything--everything is just what it is.

This has been bugging me.

Why does it follow that, if people don't consciously choose what they do, there is no such thing as moral rightness and wrongness? Surely, all it would mean is that people aren't morally responsible for their actions.

What I mean is this: the claim 'there is no such thing as good or bad anything' assumes moral goodness and badness are things of some kind that may or may or may not exist. And that's a metaphysical delusion.

That's a good question, and I understand why it is bugging you.

But how can, "the claim 'there is no such thing as good or bad anything' assumes moral goodness and badness." The claim that, "there is no good or bed," means there is no good or bad of any kind, moral or otherwise.

Of course, that is not my claim (which I actually haven't addressed). What I mean by good and bad only pertain to objectives and purposes. I do not believe in some metaphysical pipe dream of intrinsic values, only values relative to some ultimate goal or purpose. Good and bad mean good or bad to someone for something, else they mean nothing.

If one's objective is to live successfully as a human being (and nothing says it has to be) one cannot just do whatever they feel like to achieve that objective. What can and cannot be done to achieve that objective is determine by the nature of physical reality and the requirements of one's own nature as a living conscious organism.

Since I do not believe values have any meaning except in the context of beings capable of using them to make choices, if nothing makes choices, values are meaningless. What would values be for is no one could use them for anything?

That's essentially my view. It doesn't have to be yours.

Thanks, RC. I appreciate your patience.

Something's still bugging me, but I can't pin down what it is. Too much Rhodian souma, I expect.

It may be the non-moral use of 'good' and 'bad'.

How about this? Suppose I have no choice but to prefer vanilla to chocolate ice cream - to value one higher than the other. I don't understand where ultimate goal or purpose comes into this. Why does this mean there's no such thing as value? (Sorry if this misses what you're saying.)

[RCSaunders]

How about this? Suppose I have no choice but to prefer vanilla to chocolate ice cream - to value one higher than the other. I don't understand where ultimate goal or purpose comes into this. Why does this mean there's no such thing as value? (Sorry if this misses what you're saying.)

If you mean personal tastes or preferences, like a preference for one flavor over another or an aversion to some food (like mine to parsnips), those are not values. As you say, you really do hot have any choice about those aspects of your preferences. In most cases, what flavor ice cream you prefer or music you like, or temperature you prefer has no consequence and there is no reason to not choose what you prefer, and you will probably value what you prefer over what you cannot possibly enjoy.

A value only pertains to what you do choose, not what you cannot. If you prefer one thing over another, because that's just how you are made, it is not chosen and not a value. If there are no other consequences involved, you will value what you prefer most.

But, just because you like or prefer something, does not mean it is a positive value. That is the argument of the hedonist or addict. "Why shouldn't I value what I like or want most?" If is not your unchosen preference or desire for something that makes it a value, but the consequence of chosing or not choosing what is desired. Because desires do not tell you what is good for you and your desire to have or do something, just because you like or want it, does not make it a positive value. If the consequence of doing or having what you desire is self-destructive or does not improve you as a human being it is not a positive value no matter how much you prefer or desire it, and you must not choose it if you wish to live successfully and enjoy your life.

I'll leave it at that, because I'm not certain I'm addressing exactly what your question is.