Philosophy Now Forum

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 10:24 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Feb 24, 2023 10:05 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 24, 2023 8:02 pm

I have repeatedly stated that free will does not exist. I have repeatedly stated that I am a strict determinist. One obvious implication of this is that, given my understanding of the "no free will-determined universe," I am not choosing to post this on my own volition. There is absolutely nothing extraordinary about that.

Exactly! If the laws of matter are entirely applicable to human brains then everything that human beings think, feel, say and do is entirely ordinary. Wholly in sync with nature. The nature of the universe.

Ok. At least now, you seem to understand that I claim there is no free will and that we have no free choice in what we do or don't do. That's great. Congratulate your self on that.

The real kicker, however, is that when I say I have no other choice, I mean right now, in this very moment. But what I do now will impact how I act in the future.

As a child, touching a hot stove hurt a lot, so the next time I saw a stove, I made sure it wasn't hot before touching it. As a result of neural connections formed following that initial experience, nerve signals are sent to a part of the brain that prompts me to look again to ensure the stove isn't hot before touching it. I remember it to this day because the knowledge I gained permanently changed the structure of my brain.

The memory of experiences can have a powerful influence on future behavior. Our brains are wired to remember past experiences, which are stored in various forms of memory, such as sensory, short-term, and long-term memory. When we encounter similar situations in the future, our brains use these memories to guide our behavior and decision-making.

For example, suppose we have had a positive experience with a particular food. In that case, we are more likely to seek it out and enjoy it in the future. Similarly, suppose we have had a negative experience with a particular activity. In that case, we may be less likely to engage in that activity again in the future.

In addition, memories of past experiences can shape our expectations and beliefs about similar situations in the future. For instance, if we have had positive experiences with trustworthy people, we may be more likely to trust others in similar situations. On the other hand, if we have had negative experiences with untrustworthy people, we may be more cautious and less likely to trust others.

Moreover, the memory of experiences can also influence our emotional reactions to similar situations in the future. For instance, if we have had a traumatic experience, such as a car accident, we may experience fear and anxiety when we encounter similar situations, such as driving on a highway.

In summary, our memory of experiences and learning can influence our future behavior in many ways, including shaping our preferences, expectations, beliefs, and emotional reactions to similar situations.

I could be wrong, but your worldview does not appear to allow for learning. If it does, please explain how learning and memory fit into your view of a rather static and unchanging world.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 10:24 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Feb 24, 2023 10:05 pmThe origin and nature of consciousness is a difficult and largely unresolved issue in neuroscience and philosophy. Many scientists and philosophers believe consciousness arose from a combination of genetic, evolutionary, and environmental factors, although there is no definitive answer.

Yet despite the fact that "the origin and nature of consciousness is a difficult and largely unresolved issue in neuroscience and philosophy" resulting in "no definitive answers", the conclusions you arrive at here are still the most rational manner in which to explain to Mary whether she is or is not morally responsible for aborting Jane?

What is it about what I said here that you don't understand:

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 9:27 pm There is no moral responsibility since the natural world has no free will.

Consider the natural world, with its galaxies and stars, its planets and moons, its mountains and oceans, its forests and deserts. It is a vast and beautiful tapestry woven by the forces of nature over billions of years.

And yet, within this grand tapestry, there are creatures like us - human beings - who possess something called consciousness. We are aware of ourselves and the world around us, and we have the capacity to make choices and act upon them.

But here's the thing: the natural world, as far as we can tell, operates according to fixed laws and deterministic processes. The motion of the planets, the behavior of atoms, the growth of plants - all of these things are governed by physical laws that we can observe and measure.

So where does that leave us, as moral agents? If the natural world operates according to fixed laws and deterministic processes, then where is there room for free will - the idea that we can make choices that are not predetermined by the laws of nature?

The answer, I'm afraid, is that there is no room for free will. We are simply products of the natural world, shaped by the forces of evolution and environment. Our thoughts, our feelings, our actions - all of these things are ultimately determined by the physical processes that govern the universe.

And if we are not truly free to choose our actions, then how can we be held morally responsible for them? How can we be blamed for our mistakes or praised for our virtues? It seems that the very idea of moral responsibility is called into question by the scientific understanding of the natural world.

Of course, this does not mean that we should abandon ethics altogether. We can still strive to live in accordance with moral principles, even if we recognize that we are not truly free to choose our actions. But we should do so with a sense of humility and recognition that we are, ultimately, products of the natural world - and that our morality, like everything else, is shaped by the forces of nature.

As we grapple with the question of whether moral responsibility exists in a world governed by deterministic physical laws, it is important to distinguish between the concepts of moral responsibility, ethics, and moral principles.

Moral responsibility is the idea that individuals are accountable for their actions and can be praised or blamed for them. It is a deeply ingrained aspect of our moral intuitions, but it is called into question by the deterministic view of the natural world.

Ethics, on the other hand, is a broader concept that encompasses the principles and values that guide human behavior. It is concerned with questions of right and wrong, good and bad, and seeks to establish norms and standards for human conduct.

Moral principles are the specific guidelines that arise from ethical considerations. They are the rules that we use to determine what is morally right or wrong, and they can vary from culture to culture, from individual to individual.

While moral responsibility may be difficult to reconcile with the deterministic view of the natural world, ethics and moral principles are still important guides for human behavior. They help us to navigate the complexities of social interaction, to understand the consequences of our actions, and to strive towards a more just and compassionate society.

So even if we cannot fully embrace the idea of moral responsibility in a deterministic universe, we can still uphold ethical principles and strive to live according to moral values that promote human flourishing and well-being.

There's no other possible state of affairs outside of "I'm doing this because the stuff that makes me up dictates that I do this." Indeterminism doesn't change that. Dualism doesn't change that.

If that's a thought ender for some people, then... they have permission to stop thinking.

But if someone's looking for permission to stop thinking, why are they here?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 11:05 am There's no other possible state of affairs outside of "I'm doing this because the stuff that makes me up dictates that I do this." Indeterminism doesn't change that. Dualism doesn't change that.

If that's a thought ender for some people, then... they have permission to stop thinking.

But if someone's looking for permission to stop thinking, why are they here?

I think you are taking what people say too literally. We often say things not for the content, but what saying it elicits in and from others. Or might elicit. Though I also think it's good you take it literally.

In a world without free will, every event, including every human action, is predetermined by prior causes. From this perspective, the idea of moral responsibility becomes somewhat illusory. However, the absence of free will does not negate the importance of empathy and compassion for our fellow human beings.

The Maslowian hierarchy of needs describes a fundamental aspect of human nature: our basic needs for survival, safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. These needs are not arbitrary or subjective, but are based on our biological and psychological makeup as human beings. Helping others meet these needs is a good moral principle, not because it is our choice, but because it aligns with our shared human nature.

In a deterministic world, we cannot choose to be compassionate or to act altruistically. However, recognizing that meeting basic needs is essential to human well-being, we can act in accordance with this knowledge. By helping others meet their basic Maslowian needs, we can promote a more harmonious and fulfilling existence for all members of our society.

Moreover, even in a world without free will, our actions can have ripple effects that extend far beyond our immediate circumstances. Helping others in need can inspire a sense of gratitude, reciprocity, and social cohesion that can benefit the entire community.

In short, the fact that we may not have free will does not diminish the importance of helping others meet their basic Maslowian needs. Rather, it underscores the fundamental nature of these needs and our shared humanity as biological and social beings.

Ethics, on the other hand, is a broader concept that encompasses the principles and values that guide human behavior. It is concerned with questions of right and wrong, good and bad, and seeks to establish norms and standards for human conduct.

Moral principles are the specific guidelines that arise from ethical considerations. They are the rules that we use to determine what is morally right or wrong, and they can vary from culture to culture, from individual to individual.

While moral responsibility may be difficult to reconcile with the deterministic view of the natural world, ethics and moral principles are still important guides for human behavior. They help us to navigate the complexities of social interaction, to understand the consequences of our actions, and to strive towards a more just and compassionate society.

So even if we cannot fully embrace the idea of moral responsibility in a deterministic universe, we can still uphold ethical principles and strive to live according to moral values that promote human flourishing and well-being.

As soon as you set up ethics, you have to use praise and blame to get people to use those ethics.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 1:09 pm As soon as you set up ethics, you have to use praise and blame to get people to use those ethics.

A few days ago, I stated my position as follows:

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 3:34 pm People who reject the concept of free will often believe that individuals do not have complete control over their thoughts, decisions, and actions. Instead, they see these factors as the result of various environmental, social, and biological factors beyond an individual's control. As a result, these individuals are less likely to hold others solely responsible for their actions and are more inclined to view wrongdoing as a collective problem that requires collective responsibility.

When a person rejects free will, they often recognize that people's behavior is shaped by a complex set of factors, including their upbringing, social conditioning, genetics, and environmental factors. This understanding can make them more empathetic towards others and more likely to consider the societal factors that contributed to a person's actions. They may also be more inclined to address the underlying causes of wrongdoing rather than simply punishing the individual who committed the act.

Moreover, people who reject free will may see the punishment of individuals for wrongdoing as unjust, as they do not believe that the individual had complete control over their actions. Instead, they may view collective responsibility as a more appropriate response, holding institutions or societal factors accountable for creating an environment that enabled the wrongdoing to occur. By recognizing that individual actions are influenced by external factors, these individuals may be more likely to focus on structural solutions to prevent future wrongdoing.

So, people who reject free will tend to view wrongdoing as a collective problem that requires collective responsibility. By recognizing the complex factors that contribute to individual behavior, they may be more empathetic towards others and more inclined to address underlying societal factors. This understanding can help create a more just and equitable society that prioritizes prevention and rehabilitation over punishment.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 2:01 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 1:09 pm As soon as you set up ethics, you have to use praise and blame to get people to use those ethics.

A few days ago, I stated my position as follows:

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 3:34 pm People who reject the concept of free will often believe that individuals do not have complete control over their thoughts, decisions, and actions. Instead, they see these factors as the result of various environmental, social, and biological factors beyond an individual's control. As a result, these individuals are less likely to hold others solely responsible for their actions and are more inclined to view wrongdoing as a collective problem that requires collective responsibility.

When a person rejects free will, they often recognize that people's behavior is shaped by a complex set of factors, including their upbringing, social conditioning, genetics, and environmental factors. This understanding can make them more empathetic towards others and more likely to consider the societal factors that contributed to a person's actions. They may also be more inclined to address the underlying causes of wrongdoing rather than simply punishing the individual who committed the act.

Moreover, people who reject free will may see the punishment of individuals for wrongdoing as unjust, as they do not believe that the individual had complete control over their actions. Instead, they may view collective responsibility as a more appropriate response, holding institutions or societal factors accountable for creating an environment that enabled the wrongdoing to occur. By recognizing that individual actions are influenced by external factors, these individuals may be more likely to focus on structural solutions to prevent future wrongdoing.

So, people who reject free will tend to view wrongdoing as a collective problem that requires collective responsibility. By recognizing the complex factors that contribute to individual behavior, they may be more empathetic towards others and more inclined to address underlying societal factors. This understanding can help create a more just and equitable society that prioritizes prevention and rehabilitation over punishment.

This is one of those posts that is general and "in the clouds".

It doesn't say how you would deal with a specific person who is acting in a specific way.

If you have a set of ethics that says abortion is wrong, then you have to show Mary your disapproval if she gets an abortion. You praise her if she gives birth. How else would you discourage abortion? Monetary incentives?

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 2:42 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 2:01 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 1:09 pm As soon as you set up ethics, you have to use praise and blame to get people to use those ethics.

A few days ago, I stated my position as follows:

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 3:34 pm People who reject the concept of free will often believe that individuals do not have complete control over their thoughts, decisions, and actions. Instead, they see these factors as the result of various environmental, social, and biological factors beyond an individual's control. As a result, these individuals are less likely to hold others solely responsible for their actions and are more inclined to view wrongdoing as a collective problem that requires collective responsibility.

When a person rejects free will, they often recognize that people's behavior is shaped by a complex set of factors, including their upbringing, social conditioning, genetics, and environmental factors. This understanding can make them more empathetic towards others and more likely to consider the societal factors that contributed to a person's actions. They may also be more inclined to address the underlying causes of wrongdoing rather than simply punishing the individual who committed the act.

Moreover, people who reject free will may see the punishment of individuals for wrongdoing as unjust, as they do not believe that the individual had complete control over their actions. Instead, they may view collective responsibility as a more appropriate response, holding institutions or societal factors accountable for creating an environment that enabled the wrongdoing to occur. By recognizing that individual actions are influenced by external factors, these individuals may be more likely to focus on structural solutions to prevent future wrongdoing.

So, people who reject free will tend to view wrongdoing as a collective problem that requires collective responsibility. By recognizing the complex factors that contribute to individual behavior, they may be more empathetic towards others and more inclined to address underlying societal factors. This understanding can help create a more just and equitable society that prioritizes prevention and rehabilitation over punishment.

If you have a set of ethics that says abortion is wrong, then you have to show Mary your disapproval if she gets an abortion. You praise her if she gives birth. How else would you discourage abortion? Monetary incentives?

You have not convinced me that abortion is morally wrong. And you have not, nor will you ever be able to, persuade me that Mary is morally responsible for her actions, because she is not.

In the vast expanse of human morality, there exists no singular accord on what is deemed moral, immoral, or even amoral. It is an enigmatic and ever-evolving terrain, distinct from the realm of legality and illegality.

However, it troubles me greatly to witness your call to censure Mary's actions, all in the name of adhering to your personal "set of ethics". Such a course of action invokes images of the morality police of the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Taliban, who impose their values through fear and intimidation.

You have not convinced me that abortion is morally wrong. And you have not, nor will you ever be able to, persuade me that Mary is morally responsible for her actions, because she is not.

In the vast expanse of human morality, there exists no singular accord on what is deemed moral, immoral, or even amoral. It is an enigmatic and ever-evolving terrain, distinct from the realm of legality and illegality.

However, it troubles me greatly to witness your call to censure Mary's actions, all in the name of adhering to your personal "set of ethics". Such a course of action invokes images of the morality police of the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Taliban, who impose their values through fear and intimidation.

You wrote this :

Of course, this does not mean that we should abandon ethics altogether.
...
Ethics, on the other hand, is a broader concept that encompasses the principles and values that guide human behavior. It is concerned with questions of right and wrong, good and bad, and seeks to establish norms and standards for human conduct.
...
So even if we cannot fully embrace the idea of moral responsibility in a deterministic universe, we can still uphold ethical principles and strive to live according to moral values that promote human flourishing and well-being.

So what about these ethics?

If a society agrees that abortion is wrong, if it adopts that ethic, then Mary will get blame or praise.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 3:13 pm However, it troubles me greatly to witness your call to censure Mary's actions, all in the name of adhering to your personal "set of ethics". Such a course of action invokes images of the morality police of the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Taliban, who impose their values through fear and intimidation.

How could anyone not interpret what you said here to Phyllo as disapproval? You compared his (would be) actions to the actions of groups I think you chose as groups you think act terribly. How is what you did not censure? If it was ok, what you did, it would only be a difference of degree (if that) with telling Mary her aborting was wrong. I say, 'if that', because Phyllo hasn't gone into any details how one would show the disapproval. As a verbal form of disapproval, comparing someone to groups one clearly has moral disaste for, is quite strong disapproval.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 3:25 pm So what about these ethics?

If a society agrees that abortion is wrong, if it adopts that ethic, then Mary will get blame or praise.

You obviously didn't get it. Mary is not to blame. Try reading what I've written here (just click on the tiny up-arrow to see it) very slowly and carefully a second time:

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 3:34 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 3:28 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 3:13 pm However, it troubles me greatly to witness your call to censure Mary's actions, all in the name of adhering to your personal "set of ethics". Such a course of action invokes images of the morality police of the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Taliban, who impose their values through fear and intimidation.

How could anyone not interpret what you said here to Phyllo as disapproval? You compared his (would be) actions to the actions of groups I think you chose as groups you think act terribly. How is what you did not censure? If it was ok, what you did, it would only be a difference of degree (if that) with telling Mary her aborting was wrong. I say, 'if that', because Phyllo hasn't gone into any details how one would show the disapproval. As a verbal form of disapproval, comparing someone to groups one clearly has moral disaste for, is quite strong disapproval.

You might also want to look at the link I sent to Phyllo again. I'm sick of having to say the same thing over and over to people who don't even bother to read what I say.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 3:40 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 3:25 pm So what about these ethics?

If a society agrees that abortion is wrong, if it adopts that ethic, then Mary will get blame or praise.

You obviously didn't get it. Mary is not to blame. Try reading what I've written here (just click on the tiny up-arrow to see it) very slowly and carefully a second time:

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 3:34 pm

I read it ... slowly and carefully.

It doesn't say how the ethical system would work.

It doesn't say how specifically we ought to act towards Mary.

We ought to be compassionate and empathetic ?

So we can't say that we approve or disapprove of her actions? Isn't that equivalent to no ethical system at all? Do whatever you want ...

BTW. If there is no individual responsibility, then how can there be collective responsibility?

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Feb 24, 2023 3:24 pm

Well, given the Benjamin Button Syndrome of course. Jane's friend is on her way to meet Mary, forgets her purse, goes back inside to get it, comes out again and on the way to her car is hit by a bus and killed.

What if you applied that to Mary's abortion?

That's what I was doing.

In a determined universe as I understand it "here and now", both Mary and her friend are fated [re brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter] to behave in such a way that everything that happens between them could never have not happened.

But if "somehow" in a way neither scientists nor philosophers can yet explain, human brain matter did acquire free will, there are still many, many variables in our lives [re the Benjamin Button clip] that we are either unaware of or are beyond our control. So, if in a free will world where her friend's visit was instrumental in getting Mary to change her mind, any number of the smallest of things happening that prevents them from meeting can result in Jane's demise.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Feb 24, 2023 3:24 pmSome last minute event would alter her actions.

Then your idea that she was "never not going to get an abortion" goes out the window. So does the idea of a fixed fate.

Again, click, there's how you think about this, and how I do. If Mary's friend does not forget her purse, does not get hit by the bus, is able to meet with Mary and convince her not to have the abortion, then Janes is around to thank her for that. Or, sure, if Jane's life itself [existentially] winds up in the toilet, to curse the friend for bringing her into this world.