[philovan]

Originally Posted by M.F.D.B. ↗

I can't believe they just paraded that poor girl around, tits to the wind, for all the weirdos to snap pics of... da-fuq?

Like the weirdos who come here to watch the parade?

[M.F.D.B.]

Originally Posted by philovan ↗

Like the weirdos who come here to watch the parade?

I like to think those are the minority here...

[philovan]

Originally Posted by M.F.D.B. ↗

I like to think those are the minority here...

Hold on to that thought.

[FuManBoobs]

Originally Posted by philovan ↗

Given the presumed absence of free will, people will make the comments they make and push the notions they push based on the environmental factors which shape THEM. Thus there are no moral/ethical grounds for criticizing their behavior. In fact there are no moral/ethical grounds for criticizing any behavior, including this post.

Of course there are still ethical grounds for criticizing behaviour. You don't need free will to see a problem behaviour and find a solution to deal with it. It just helps to understand there is no free will so better solutions can be made.

[philovan]

Originally Posted by FuManBoobs ↗

Of course there are still ethical grounds for criticizing behaviour. You don't need free will to see a problem behaviour and find a solution to deal with it. It just helps to understand there is no free will so better solutions can be made.

This is incoherent, or you don't understand what is meant by "free will" in the philosophical sense. I taught a course on this for years. Basically, it is the contradictory of determinism, the doctrine that all actions and events are rigorously determined by antecedent physical causes. If this is correct (and thus there is no "free will") then criticism of behavior and morality in general are deprived of any rational basis. Everyone is determined to do exactly what he/she does, just as a rock dropped from a height is determined to fall in one and only one precise way by the laws of physics. Criticism of behavior involves the implication that the person being criticized could have done differently than he/she actually did. Otherwise it is pointless. Determinism - the absence of free will - precludes the possibility of ever doing otherwise than one actually does.

[FuManBoobs]

Originally Posted by philovan ↗

This is incoherent, or you don't understand what is meant by "free will" in the philosophical sense. I taught a course on this for years. Basically, it is the contradictory of determinism, the doctrine that all actions and events are rigorously determined by antecedent physical causes. If this is correct (and thus there is no "free will") then criticism of behavior and morality in general are deprived of any rational basis. Everyone is determined to do exactly what he/she does, just as a rock dropped from a height is determined to fall in one and only one precise way by the laws of physics. Criticism of behavior involves the implication that the person being criticized could have done differently than he/she actually did. Otherwise it is pointless. Determinism - the absence of free will - precludes the possibility of ever doing otherwise than one actually does.

Yup. But you can still point out where people are going wrong and attempt to rectify those behaviours. You don't need free will to see the causes and address them. That is what I mean by criticize.

[philovan]

Originally Posted by FuManBoobs ↗

Yup. But you can still point out where people are going wrong and attempt to rectify those behaviours. You don't need free will to see the causes and address them. That is what I mean by criticize.

Do you see the circle here? The term "wrong" is inescapably a morally laden expression. To be at all meaningful it must be contrasted with "right". A similar dynamic occurs with the expression "rectify." But now you have entered the moral universe of right and wrong, a realm which presupposes free will, the very thing being denied in the first place by determinism.

Certainly actions are taken which impact behavior in societies. People are incarcerated, executed, etc. and these actions influence the behaviors of others. All of this can be conveyed using strictly descriptive language devoid of moral content. Still, there is a great tendency to describe these actions so as to justify them in moral terms, indicating a belief in the legitimate applications of moral predicates. However, all of this can be further described in deterministic, morally neutral language. People are determined to have moral beliefs and act in accordance with them for this or that reason, etc. Yet even nearly all hard core determinists have a strong tendency to "justify" the social institutions of which they approve and "condemn" those which they disapprobate. They don't want to view the whole of human society in the same terms as complex activity in an ant colony.

It just keeps going round and round, and this paradox is one of the reasons that consciousness itself is dismissed as a mere "epiphenomenon" in many deterministic circles.

[koipin]

Kids

[FuManBoobs]

Originally Posted by philovan ↗

Do you see the circle here? The term "wrong" is inescapably a morally laden expression. To be at all meaningful it must be contrasted with "right". A similar dynamic occurs with the expression "rectify." But now you have entered the moral universe of right and wrong, a realm which presupposes free will, the very thing being denied in the first place by determinism.

Certainly actions are taken which impact behavior in societies. People are incarcerated, executed, etc. and these actions influence the behaviors of others. All of this can be conveyed using strictly descriptive language devoid of moral content. Still, there is a great tendency to describe these actions so as to justify them in moral terms, indicating a belief in the legitimate applications of moral predicates. However, all of this can be further described in deterministic, morally neutral language. People are determined to have moral beliefs and act in accordance with them for this or that reason, etc. Yet even nearly all hard core determinists have a strong tendency to "justify" the social institutions of which they approve and "condemn" those which they disapprobate. They don't want to view the whole of human society in the same terms as complex activity in an ant colony.

It just keeps going round and round, and this paradox is one of the reasons that consciousness itself is dismissed as a mere "epiphenomenon" in many deterministic circles.

I think we can objectively agree on lots of things that could be labelled as "wrong". 1+1=3 - Wrong. Should I act like a cunt and kill people? - Wrong.

So long as the agreed goal is to increase health and well being, or discover truth etc. then I don't see a problem with it.

And with rectify...well, I don't see how any of what I said means presupposing free will. How long ago did you teach that class?

[philovan]

Originally Posted by FuManBoobs ↗

I think we can objectively agree on lots of things that could be labelled as "wrong". 1+1=3 - Wrong. Should I act like a cunt and kill people? - Wrong.

So long as the agreed goal is to increase health and well being, or discover truth etc. then I don't see a problem with it.

And with rectify...well, I don't see how any of what I said means presupposing free will. How long ago did you teach that class?

One point at at time: The arithmetic example is irrelevant to the discussion of moral right and wrong. That is a case of a matter of fact, not a matter of values.

Should I kill people? Well, if I think that they need killing, why not? Hitler found people he thought needed killing an went in business. Why would I agree that the increase of the health and well being of anybody besides myself is a goal worth pursuing? Or the discovery of useful truth by anyone besides yours truly?

My point is, of course, not that I actually adhere to the above, but rather that if I did (and some people do hold views very much like these) you would have no moral argument against me if determinism is true. You would have no grounds for calling the above beliefs and practices "wrong" in a moral sense. After all, it would not be up to me in any way that I held these beliefs and acted in accordance with them. All my behavior would be a product of antecedent physical conditions and the laws of nature. If society one day devolves into a Hobbesian free-for-all with every person at war with every other person for resources and sustenance this will also be a result of inevitable causal processes, and neither "right" nor "wrong" will apply to it.

Too bad you didn't have a chance to take my course.