Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:11 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:08 pm I am responsible for getting in my car and running a red light because I made the choice to get in the car and run a red light.
No one else did, but me. That does not mean I'm "morally responsible" which means something completely different.

I am going to change the word "responsible" (which I don't understand how you are using) with a word I just made up: replankable.

I am replankable for getting in my car and running a red light because I made the choice to get in the car and run a red light.
No one else did it, but me. That does not mean I'm "morally replankable" which means something completely different.

And now I am going to re-write your sentence above and entirely discard both the words "responsible" and "replankable"

I ran a red light with my car.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:08 pm You're getting ahead of yourself. Let's establish our terms first; then we discuss what it means to be responsible in terms of consequentialism.

Yes! That is what I am asking you to do, because I don't understand what you mean by "responsible".
I don't think you can define "responsible" in any other way BUT consequentialism!

For every sentence you write using the word "responsible" I am just going to change it with "replankable".

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:30 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:11 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:08 pm I am responsible for getting in my car and running a red light because I made the choice to get in the car and run a red light.
No one else did, but me. That does not mean I'm "morally responsible" which means something completely different.
I am going to change the word "responsible" (which I don't understand how you are using) with a word I just made up: replankable.

I am replankable for getting in my car and running a red light because I made the choice to get in the car and run a red light.
No one else did it, but me. That does not mean I'm "morally replankable" which means something completely different.

And now I am going to re-write your sentence above and entirely discard both the words "responsible" and "replankable"

I ran a red light with my car.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:08 pm You're getting ahead of yourself. Let's establish our terms first; then we discuss what it means to be responsible in terms of consequentialism.
Yes! That is what I am asking you to do, because I don't understand what you mean by "responsible".
I don't think you can define "responsible" in any other way BUT consequentialism!

For every sentence you write using the word "responsible" I am just going to change it with "replankable".

Changing the word is only going to confuse people. It's not that difficult to distinguish between being the one that caused (or was responsible) for the accident, and being held morally responsible for that same accident. Maybe this will help.

Chris MacDonald, My PhD is in Philosophy & I've been a tenured philosophy professor.
Answered Mar 9, 2018

Moral responsibility is one kind of responsibility—it means being ethically accountable for having done something. You can also be legally responsible (responsible under the law). Or you can be causally responsible — responsible for having been the cause of something. Moral or legal responsibility usually build upon (and presume) causal responsibility.

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-differe ... onsibility

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:33 pm**

Peacegirl wrote:

I am responsible for getting in my car and running a red light because I made the choice to get in the car and run a red light.
No one else did, but me. That does not mean I'm "morally responsible" which means something completely different.

A Determinist would say that you are not to blame for breaking the law , and neither is the policeman to blame for booking you, the sheriff is not to blame for fining you, and the lawmakers are not to blame, neither is the society to blame for its criminal justice system.

You are responsible to the law and the society for your decisions as a fact of law, unless there were legally recognised extenuating circumstances. An irresponsible personality would not be an extenuating circumstance even although you aren't to blame for your personality.

I completely agree with Peacegirl.

What if Peacegirl, or I, had risked our life to rescue a man from drowning ? We would be responsible for choosing to do so, but not morally responsible, just like if we broke the law. Just as there was no moral blame for breaking the law, is there no occasion for moral praise for our heroism and kindness?

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:35 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:30 pm Changing the word is only going to confuse people.

OK. I am merely demonstrating your equivocation. Adding "responsible" adds nothing to what you are trying to convey.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:30 pm It's not that difficult to distinguish between being the one that caused (or was responsible) for the accident, and being held morally responsible for that same accident. Maybe this will help.

OK. So you DO use "responsible" synonymously with "causal".

Now all you have to clarify is what you mean by "you". Do you mean - you-the-meatbag, or you-the-conscious-mind-steering-the-meatbag

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:30 pm Moral responsibility is one kind of responsibility—it means being ethically accountable for having done something. You can also be legally responsible (responsible under the law). Or you can be causally responsible — responsible for having been the cause of something. Moral or legal responsibility usually build upon (and presume) causal responsibility.

Yes, Good! Lets stick with "responsibility" meaning "causality". This way there's little risk of us confusing "causal" and "legal" responsibility. Don't you think?

Who or what is causally responsible for making choices?

A. You-the-whole-meatbag
B. You-the-conscious-mind-steering-the-meatbag
C. The meatbag's brain.

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:02 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:35 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:30 pm Changing the word is only going to confuse people.
OK. I am merely demonstrating your equivocation. Adding "responsible" adds nothing to what you are trying to convey.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:30 pm It's not that difficult to distinguish between being the one that caused (or was responsible) for the accident, and being held morally responsible for that same accident. Maybe this will help.
OK. So you DO use "responsible" synonymously with "causal".

Now all you have to clarify is what you mean by "you". Do you mean - you-the-meatbag, or you-the-conscious-mind-steering-the-meatbag

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:30 pm Moral responsibility is one kind of responsibility—it means being ethically accountable for having done something. You can also be legally responsible (responsible under the law). Or you can be causally responsible — responsible for having been the cause of something. Moral or legal responsibility usually build upon (and presume) causal responsibility.
Yes, Good! Lets stick with "responsibility" meaning "causal responsibility".

Who or what is causally responsible for making choices?

A. You-the-meatbag
B. You-the-conscious-mind-steering-the-meatbag
C. The meatbag's brain

Under a "causal responsibility" the division of choice into quantifiable choices necessitates number and choice are inseperable.

The above example alone, that you provide, is a division and promulgation of categories. While the "choice" exists it is still defined through a quantitative determinism equivalent to a "branching" or "angularization" where one phenomenon projects into two or more directions.

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:07 pm**

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:33 pm Peacegirl wrote:

I am responsible for getting in my car and running a red light because I made the choice to get in the car and run a red light.
No one else did, but me. That does not mean I'm "morally responsible" which means something completely different.
A Determinist would say that you are not to blame for breaking the law , and neither is the policeman to blame for booking you, the sheriff is not to blame for fining you, and the lawmakers are not to blame, neither is the society to blame for its criminal justice system.

I am going to quote excerpts from the book, Decline and Fall of All Evil, because that is why I'm here.

It should be obvious that all your judgments of what is right and
wrong in human conduct are based upon an ethical standard such as
the Ten Commandments which came into existence out of God’s will,
as did everything else, and consequently you have come to believe
through a fallacious association of symbols that these words which
judge the actions of others are accurate. How was it possible for the
Ten Commandments to come into existence unless religion believed
in free will?

But in reality when murder is committed it is neither
wrong nor right, just what someone at a certain point in his life
considered better for himself under circumstances which included the
judgment of others and the risks involved; and when the government
or personal revenge retaliates by taking this person’s life, this too, was
neither right nor wrong, just what gave greater satisfaction. Neither
the government or the murderer are to blame for what each judged
better under their particular set of circumstances; but whether they
will decide to think and react as before will depend not on any moral
values, not on habit, not on custom, not on any standards of right
and wrong, but solely on whether the conditions under which they
were previously motivated remain the same, and they do not remain
as before because the knowledge that man’s will is not free reveals
facts never before understood. We can now see how the confusion of
words and the inability to perceive certain type relations have
compelled many thinkers who could not get beyond this impasse to
assume, as Durant did, that if man knew his will was not free it would
give him a perfect opportunity to take advantage of this knowledge.

“I am still not satisfied with the explanation. If it was not for the
laws that protect society, what is to prevent man from taking more
easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no more a
condition to be considered? Further, what is to stop him from
satisfying his desires to his heart’s content when he knows there will
be no consequences or explanations necessary?

Belinda wrote:You are responsible to the law and the society for your decisions as a fact of law, unless there were legally recognised extenuating circumstances. An irresponsible personality would not be an extenuating circumstance even although you aren't to blame for your personality.

We're actually not to blame for anything, not even those who are rational and have no defective personalities.

The challenge of the law absolves his
conscience with threats of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,
which is payment in full for the risks he takes. He may risk going to
prison or be willing to pay the ultimate price with his life for the
satisfaction of certain desires. An individual would not mind taking
all kinds of chances involving others because he could always come up
with a reasonable excuse to get off the hook, or he could pay a price,
if caught. If he borrowed a thousand dollars and was unable to pay all
of it back, he could easily say, “Sue me for the rest.” If he tries to
hold up a bank, however, and fails, the legal system does not allow him
to excuse himself and he is sent to prison. Without the knowledge
that he would be blamed and punished should he fail; without this
advance justification which allowed him to risk hurting others, the
price of this hurt is beyond his purchasing power.

Belinda wrote:I completely agree with Peacegirl.

What if Peacegirl, or I, had risked our life to rescue a man from drowning ? We would be responsible for choosing to do so, but not morally responsible, just like if we broke the law. Just as there was no moral blame for breaking the law, is there no occasion for moral praise for our heroism and kindness?

Blame and praise are opposite sides of the coin. I don't think praising someone for doing something heroic would be wrong, as long as it's not an inverted form of blame.

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:18 pm**

duplicate

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:18 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:18 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:02 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:35 pm
OK. I am merely demonstrating your equivocation. Adding "responsible" adds nothing to what you are trying to convey.

OK. So you DO use "responsible" synonymously with "causal".

Now all you have to clarify is what you mean by "you". Do you mean - you-the-meatbag, or you-the-conscious-mind-steering-the-meatbag
For purposes of this discussion, these terms are like splitting hairs. I am responsible as an individual self that is making the choice. You can try to separate the individual into different categories but it doesn't take away from the fact that nothing is responsible for the action but me, the I, the self, the agent, the conscious one, etc.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:30 pm Moral responsibility is one kind of responsibility—it means being ethically accountable for having done something. You can also be legally responsible (responsible under the law). Or you can be causally responsible — responsible for having been the cause of something. Moral or legal responsibility usually build upon (and presume) causal responsibility.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:Yes, Good! Lets stick with "responsibility" meaning "causal responsibility".
Saying I caused the accident is not the same as "causal responsibility" which could be interpreted to mean that I was caused by external factors that led to the accident. The word "cause" is misleading because nothing external can cause you to do anything against your will. In other words, why was the chosen option inevitable? Because that option most fitted our purposes at the time-inevitability is not some mysterious external force which forces us to choose against our will. How about the term "innocently responsible."

Eodnhoj7 wrote:Who or what is causally responsible for making choices?

A. You-the-meatbag
B. You-the-conscious-mind-steering-the-meatbag
C. The meatbag's brain
Under a "causal responsibility" the division of choice into quantifiable choices necessitates number and choice are inseperable.

The above example alone, that you provide, is a division and promulgation of categories. While the "choice" exists it is still defined through a quantitative determinism equivalent to a "branching" or "angularization" where one phenomenon projects into two or more directions.
True.

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:19 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:02 pm Under a "causal responsibility" the division of choice into quantifiable choices necessitates number and choice are inseperable.

The above example alone, that you provide, is a division and promulgation of categories. While the "choice" exists it is still defined through a quantitative determinism equivalent to a "branching" or "angularization" where one phenomenon projects into two or more directions.

Which is why the notion of "control" is fundamental and why unpacking these things at individual basis is useless philosophical dabble.

Choice/decision theory is just how I conceptualise my own mind. It helps ME think about my choices and my own decision-making.
But ONLY to the extent that I have any control over the things I think I have control over.

Do I have any control over those things? Evidence required!

And you will find that the answer is not absolutist.
Some things you have control over.
Some things you don't have control over.

Some things you CAN have control over IF you had sufficient resources (time/emotions/patience/money etc.)

Some things you lose control over when your attention is stolen from you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:27 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:19 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:02 pm Under a "causal responsibility" the division of choice into quantifiable choices necessitates number and choice are inseperable.

The above example alone, that you provide, is a division and promulgation of categories. While the "choice" exists it is still defined through a quantitative determinism equivalent to a "branching" or "angularization" where one phenomenon projects into two or more directions.
Which is why the notion of "control" is fundamental and why unpacking these things at individual basis is useless philosophical dabble.

Choice/decision theory is just how I conceptualise my own mind. It helps ME think about my choices and my own decision-making.
But ONLY to the extent that I have any control over the things I think I have control over.

Do I have any control over those things? Evidence required!

And you will find that the answer is not absolutist.
Some things you have control over.
Some things you don't have control over.

Some things you CAN have control over IF you had sufficient resources (time/emotions/patience/money etc.)

Some things you lose control over when your attention is stolen from you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy

The way we define terms is so important or else we're not communicating. Having control in terms of having choice without constraint, or having many choices at our disposal, is not the same thing as having ultimate control, which we don't have if will is not free. That is what makes our choices beyond our control.

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:31 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:07 pm Neither the government or the murderer are to blame for what each judged
better under their particular set of circumstances; but whether they
will decide to think and react as before will depend not on any moral
values, not on habit, not on custom, not on any standards of right
and wrong, but solely on whether the conditions under which they
were previously motivated remain the same, and they do not remain
as before because the knowledge that man’s will is not free reveals
facts never before understood. We can now see how the confusion of
words and the inability to perceive certain type relations have
compelled many thinkers who could not get beyond this impasse to
assume, as Durant did, that if man knew his will was not free it would
give him a perfect opportunity to take advantage of this knowledge.

This is far too particularist for my liking.

The reason why governments punish criminals is BECAUSE they believe punishing criminals reduces FUTURE crime rates.
The government (representing) the people want lower crime.

This is true at the social scale. This is true from a holistic (statistical) perspective.

Statistics does not tell us WHY something works. It just tells us THAT something works.

But more to the point. What do you mean to "blame" something or somebody? Again - from a consequentialist perspective.

I blame gravity for my ankle...

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:34 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:27 pm The way we define terms is so important or else we're not communicating.

You do not practice what you preach. I am telling you how to communicate with me.

I am telling you EXACTLY what I need to understand what you mean.

I need a juxtaposition, not a definition.

If you are arguing that free will does not exist, then the way to tell me what free will is would be to tell me what we would observe/experience IF free will exists.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:27 pm Having control in terms of having choice without constraint, or having many choices at our disposal, is not the same thing as having ultimate control, which we don't have if will is not free. That is what makes our choices beyond our control.

Let me rephrase what you are saying: If we had free will then we will have ultimate control.

The way you conceptualise "free will" is equivalent to the conception of "knowledge" under physics/thermodynamics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:36 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:27 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:19 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:02 pm Under a "causal responsibility" the division of choice into quantifiable choices necessitates number and choice are inseperable.

The above example alone, that you provide, is a division and promulgation of categories. While the "choice" exists it is still defined through a quantitative determinism equivalent to a "branching" or "angularization" where one phenomenon projects into two or more directions.
Which is why the notion of "control" is fundamental and why unpacking these things at individual basis is useless philosophical dabble.

Choice/decision theory is just how I conceptualise my own mind. It helps ME think about my choices and my own decision-making.
But ONLY to the extent that I have any control over the things I think I have control over.

Do I have any control over those things? Evidence required!

And you will find that the answer is not absolutist.
Some things you have control over.
Some things you don't have control over.

Some things you CAN have control over IF you had sufficient resources (time/emotions/patience/money etc.)

Some things you lose control over when your attention is stolen from you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy
The way we define terms is so important or else we're not communicating. Having control in terms of having choice without constraint, or having many choices at our disposal, is not the same thing as having ultimate control, which we don't have if will is not free. That is what makes our choices beyond our control.

The fact that all terms are defined by a projective circularity, evidenced by any use of a dictionary, necessitates a base underlying constant to communication.

The fact that choice and determinism effectively exist as "one", and this "reason" (argued by all faiths) is an extension of "the logos", all reality is both free will and pre-determined. People go through life understanding the choices they already made, with this understanding being "actualization", where nothingness is inverted to "being".

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:38 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:36 pm The fact that all terms are defined by a projective circularity, evidenced by any use of a dictionary, necessitates a base underlying constant to communication.

Which is exactly why juxtaposition works. Invert everything - what remains the same and what changes.

Counter-factual reasoning is the yang to the factual ying.

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:42 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:38 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:36 pm The fact that all terms are defined by a projective circularity, evidenced by any use of a dictionary, necessitates a base underlying constant to communication.
Which is exactly why juxtaposition works. Invert everything - what remains the same and what changes.

Counter-factual reasoning is the yang to the factual ying.

But inversion exists through progressive axiomation of any phenomenon (albeit learning a new fact from an old, creating a new symbol, progressing a particular field of knowledge, etc.) where this progressive axiomation necessitates all linearism as a constant boundary of consciousness and thought.

The yang and yin exist as "one".

Philosophy Now Forum

Revolution in Thought

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Revolution in Thought

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Revolution in Thought

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Revolution in Thought

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re: