CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Can you explain how determinism doesn't defeat justice/morality?
If all decisions... All actions, inactions, assumptions and conclusions are inevitable and furthermore inescapable then why hold anyone accountable for immorality? They couldn't help it, they inevitably had to do so as their will isn't free enough to escape their predetermined thought process.
I disagree with determinism, however a deterministic worldview certainly doesn't defeat the purpose of criminal justice. Behaviorist methods of learning/conditioning (operant, classical and vicarious) all depend on reward and punishment. People learn to avoid behaviors which are punishing and perform behaviors which are rewarding and this even occurs through the vicarious observation of others. As such, criminal justice serves to reduce negative behavior by teaching people, both directly and vicariously, that negative behavior results in punishment.
As such, criminal justice serves to reduce negative behavior by teaching people, both directly and vicariously, that negative behavior results in punishment.
I like this.
If I understand your point, you are saying that justice and morality are actually mechanisms of determinism, by virtue of being aspects of operant conditioning.
This implies an imperfectly determinist universe, and justice/morality are helping to make it MORE deterministic.
Either the entire reality is all inevitable and predetermined or we have a degree (any degree) of power to consciously, willingly influence its outcome.
Either the entire reality is all inevitable and predetermined or we have a degree (any degree) of power to consciously, willingly influence its outcome.
I disagree.
Consider that a system can begin with free will, but by virtue of the choices made, devolve to a point where no more choices are possible. It is like a game of solitaire that ends with 3 or fewer cards in the deck, and no possible moves.
You have the capacity for choice, but no options to choose.
Your choices resulted in a system wherein nothing can change, which makes the end state functionally deterministic.
If you are saying that free will is enslaved/constrained to the laws of physics and that we can't just willingly defy gravity and other things like that then you are correct (at least for the human being you are correct, we don't know what supernatural beings are out there that can defy the laws we are chained by).
This doesn't defy that at any time where more than one thing is physically viable and we consciously perceive that there is more than one option, that there is a predetermined nature to the one we pick.
As I say in another post in this debate, quarks and electrons can truly be in 2 places at once with total mathematical and observational incapability to say which of the 2 they are at even with back-tracking their route.
Reality is random and those that deny it are traitors to their own cause (quantum physicists don't understand the randomness of quarks and electrons if they say it's predetermined and in any way inevitable).
What I am saying is that one concept of determinism is as a state of the universe, not a rule of the universe.
The deterministic state is one in which there is no opportunity for choice. One possible reason could be that it is a universe without any self-aware agents, or one in which the agents are partitioned by circumstance from opportunities to exercise agency. These "periods" of determinism could be localized in time and space, or they could be pervasive throughout the entirety of the universe.
The common model seems to be that if that deterministic state is present at the start of the universe, then there can never be free will in the universe because there are no possible choices to define free will. However, I see no reason that, as the universe proceeds deterministically, it could never possibly become non-deterministic.
For example, after a period with no agents, agents developed, thereby introducing free will.
Alternately, a line of cause-effect relationships with single possibility outcomes finally include a bifurcation that makes a choice possible.
I agree with you that in the present universe there is randomness and not a predetermined route of events and that we really have actual say in what occurs.
I disagree with you that it ever was not this way as even absent of conscious live beings, reality is at its very core physically RANDOM (yes really it is).
If the ones administering punishment and reward are themselves slaves to their impulses, how on Earth can they then teach self control or be trusted to condition jus as impulse driven people to a life of disciplined good behavior?
In your view, determinism necessitates the absence of self control. So if determinism is the case, self control is not a human condition, either for guard or criminal.
If punishment deterministically alters impulses, then for certain actions is necessary in a determined world. If the world is determined, and we have a sense of justice, then it can be no other way.
But it can be other ways, infinitely so. Either you are arguing for the sake of it, or you really are a brainwashed new age physicist who is going to stonewall my ability to reason with you as you think numbers matter more than words in debates.
Mathfan at least is correctly named, he is exactly like what I just described and additionally likes to argue in walls of texts which makes it more agonising.
Determinism means there is no other way by definition. For you to say that there are other ways is not an argument. It’s a statement that determinism doesn’t exist. But that’s it.
The real point here is that determinism doesn’t defeat justice, rather justice relies on it.
Firstly you now are denying that time is experienced and isn't as linear as we are perceiving it, secondly you are denying the idea of parallel universes.
I'm done talking to a blinkered determinist, this debate won't be fruitful. The reason I'm not banning you is that I see you being very productive with others so go ahead and debate them but stop antagonising me with your BS.
The version of reality where time is purely as linear as we perceive it and where there's not any parallel universe or other form of how reality has been, is and/or will be is one possible one in theory but based on our free will as well as the randomness of matter (all quarks are permanently in at least one of two places with genuinely no way to tell which) the way reality is running strongly implies that the determinists' reality is not the one we are in.
If my conversation appears more fruitful with others than with you, it’s because they make arguments and you make statements and demand they not be challenged. Now I will make some statements so you know where I am coming from.
Free will means the ability to choose between alternatives. It’s something we do all the time. But what we choose is determined by our values and our ability to infer the causal outcomes of our actions. So while you choose your way in life, you do not choose what kind of person you are. The kind of person you are will determine your choices. But you still make choices.
It’s true that some people cannot be changed by corrective action, but many more can be changed. Morality and Justice often determine that change.
What we call random is often simply a situation wherein the cause is not known to us. This may be true for quantum mechanics as well. But whether truly random events happen in life makes no difference in the free will question, since your response to random events is still determined by the kind of person you are, which is not a choice.
Though the pace of time is not universal, the progress of time is still linear. This is because causation goes in one direction.
I’m not a determinist. I just understand that randomness is not free will.
I have willingly changed myself over time through willpower. I don't need to tell you my fucking life story but trust me, you can change it takes a lot of hard work and motivation.
"If I understand your point, you are saying that justice and morality are actually mechanisms of determinism, by virtue of being aspects of operant conditioning."
It does appear that justice, when divorced from any rehabilitative programs and retributive motivations, solely serves the purpose of conditioning.
"This implies an imperfectly determinist universe, and justice/morality are helping to make it MORE deterministic."
I don't agree that it necessarily makes the universe more deterministic because there will always be influences on one's behavior, they will just be different.
Though I'm rather forced to accept determinism (whether I like it or not), the rest of this seems very sound and well-reasoned, and I'd be very inclined to agree. Punishment does have its definite limitations, though - in fact, it's famous for taking criminals and making them into hardened criminals.
"Punishment does have its definite limitations, though - in fact, it's famous for taking criminals and making them into hardened criminals."
Well, when you gather all the criminals together in one place they will of course share knowledge and try to out-do each other. However it's better to have a punishment to deter such behavior than to allow it, especially given how rewarding crime can be.
Agreed - it's not like I disagreed to begin with, just pointing out limitations. I feel that that's pretty important that we recognize that any sort of behaviorism is imperfect.
If determinism is true, the ones training the rest are as enslaved to their predetermined tendency to commit crime or train wrong as the very trainees themselves.
If determinism is true, the ones training the rest are as enslaved to their predetermined tendency to commit crime or train wrong as the very trainees themselves.
If you want to argue that justice is pointless in a deterministic universe, then so is everything else. The reasoning you are trying to apply specifically to morality and/or justice is not specific to morality and/or justice but rather applies to everything.
This isn't about the point of justice, this is about the actual idea of justice and morality itself being able to function.
A deterministic universe doesn't preclude the function of morality or justice. Why would you think that it does? All it really means is that justice or injustice become an inevitability, the same as the crime and the criminal become an inevitability.
If you want to argue that justice is pointless in a deterministic universe, then so is everything else. The reasoning you are trying to apply specifically to morality and/or justice is not specific to morality and/or justice but rather applies to everything
So you were bound to molest donkeys because your dad and grandfather did.
You can't justify the punishment system or reward system if the ones enforcing it are as incapable of restraining their urges and impulses as the people they are training to gain self-restraint.
If you can't understand this then you are simply too stupid to continue debating.
the ones enforcing it are as incapable of restraining their urges and impulses as the people they are training to gain self-restraint
Non-criminals have different urges and impulses than criminals. One of them being the urge to alter the urges of criminals to be more like non-criminals.
There are criminals who hate other cri.jnals (even their own specific type of crime co.mitting criminals at times) and as for guards, they're quite sadistic fuckers usually.
That's exactly the difference between Al Franken and the rest of those scumbags, (including Trump). He was a comedian who made his living "horsing around" and his "will wasn't free enough to escape its predetermined thought process". Not saying he didn't step over the line, but, have you seen many comedians, today, that don't??
He was a comedian who made his living "horsing around" and his "will wasn't free enough to escape its predetermined thought process". Not saying he didn't step over the line, but, have you seen many comedians, today, that don't??
Is your argument that his choice of profession predetermined that he behave badly simply because the profession involves "stepping over the line"?
If that applies to comedians regarding personal interactions, it certainly applies to Hollywood producers and actors, politicians and newscasters regarding "going over the line" AND lying. ;)
You can't genuinely compare the lying of an actor when playing a role as the same kind of lying a fraudulent news source commits. I can somewhat respect closeted politicians and white lies like having real tits etc but big lies should also not go unpunished.
I was comparing the lying of an actor, the fraudulent reporting of news personalities, and the lying of politicians to the comedian crossing the line. They are all equally irrelevant.
My point was that there is no excuse for any of the people who committed sexual assault, nor is there any excuse for any of the people who knew and protected them, so that they could continue to expose themselves to, fondle, and rape even more victims.
This goes just as much for the victims who took hush money payouts to keep quiet so other women could be victims of these scumbags later.
You and I both would probably take the hush money esp if you know he can ruin your family's careers not just your own with his influence.
Some enemies are not worth making so early on in one's career. It's like if the prison kingpin fondles or beats on you early on in your prison life. You either hush or get it much worse again and again for being a snitch.
You and I both would probably take the hush money esp if you know he can ruin your family's careers
Maybe, but I sure hope not.
It boils down to the question of whether we choose to sell ourselves and others, and how cheaply.
In Tom Jones, Henry Fielding advises that we "neither buy too dear" (at too high a price) "nor sell too cheap." The question is always whether what we sacrifice is worth what we get in exchange.
Fielding's warning is not just about our personal lives. It is no secret that Hollywood and Washington are full of people who bought their success by sacrificing their own characters and ethics, and have sold their virtue or self-respect for career success.
The problem is that many of the people involved in these incidents bought their careers with the safety and dignity of later victims, and sold justice, not just for themselves, but also for others, for cash.
No, that's too one dimensional. See, when you're at the top, you now have the power to be the molested interns' shoulder to cry on and have the power and influence to tear apart the powerful rival who did it and be left standing.
Yes, all who climb the ladder end up turning blind eyes here and there. Anyone who eats meat but has never with their own hands killed a live mammal or hooked and suffocated a live fish in their hands is in this boat. Hypocrisy is how you rise to be powerful, character and morality is what you do when you actually have that power.
Anyone who eats meat but has never with their own hands killed a live mammal or hooked and suffocated a live fish in their hands is in this boat.
YES!
I am a firm believer that all of us as meat eaters need to kill and dress out our own meat at least once so that we understand what it is, and that it did not just magically appear in the package in the grocery store.
Those who cannot bring themselves to kill the animal, or who feel bad afterward know they should not eat meat.
It is a way to determine what constitutes "too dear" or "too cheap".
Hypocrisy is how you rise to be powerful, character and morality is what you do when you actually have that power.
If I understand what you are trying to say, you mean that allowing injustice may be required to get to the top where you can address the injustice.
That is a very dangerous game to play. It is predicated on the hope that once you start putting your character on the shelf, that somehow it will still be there for you to pick up at a later date.
A lot of what character boils down to is the habit of courage.
What will you really do when it is no longer a habit?
I agree with you, even your later questions poke good holes in my argument but this is because they actually don't counter it but just show that it's not perfect.
There is a chance that some genuinely become much less empathetic as they rise the ranks of any career. It takes very unusual characters to maintain real benevolence in spite of the hostile world we live in.
Don't take this as an insult but purely an observation... You seem like you feel robbed in life... Perhaps you didn't do the dinner dates or sucking up the others did and are not where you wish you were career wise or on your life mission whatever it may be.
Just know, do not ever let this fear of losing the real Marcus hold you back... You only can change the world if you risk becoming one if the monsters up the food chain. As long as you admit they don't all use their power unfair or wrong you concede you could be a hero in this lifetime still and do not ever waste that potential on the risk of tarnishing your purity as purity when you're powerless is purity untapped.
Your post focuses our little side discussion very nicely on the brass tacks (true measurement of the issue.)
You seem like you feel robbed in life...
Not even a little.
I have not always made the best choices, but in general, I am exceedingly pleased by my transactions. I have never bought to dear, nor sold too cheap. In most cases, what I have sold was of negligible value, and what I have purchased I generally bought at bargain prices. Most importantly, I have never regretted what I have paid.
do not ever let this fear of losing the real Marcus hold you back
I assume not losing the real Marcus is a way of saying "failing to live according to my principles." That is where we have to deal with the ramifications of the nature free will.
The nature of free will is that it is localized on the individual's choices. Having free will obviously does not mean being able to fly or turn lead into gold, etc. It means the ability to choose from among any options available to us at any particular moment.
The primary ramification of this is that all our choices have costs, including opportunity costs. If I choose to go to a movie, I am simultaneously choosing to pay the price of admission, and to forgo participating some other activity that is happening at the same time. The cost of seeing that movie is $10 and other movies I could have seen, and a concert and party, and class, etc. I might otherwise have attended, and some work might I otherwise might have done, and, for that matter, a crime I might otherwise have committed.
A secondary ramification of this nature of free will is that the cost of a choice is subject to the tenets of chaos theory. Choosing the movie costs the myriad choices, opportunities, and possible results inherent in any of the activities I did not choose.
This makes evaluating the opportunity costs of our choices functionally impossible. We can only evaluate the costs inherent in what we actually choose.
Could I have accomplished other things with my life so far? Undoubtedly.
Would I have accomplished things that would make me feel more fulfilled and happy with my life? There is no possible way to know.
Because of this, I think the best path to satisfaction is to make choices one at a time in accordance with my values and principles.
...purity when you're powerless is purity untapped.
I do not think purity is what we are really talking about, but I think virtue could be. I also assume by powerless you mean without authority, and not in positions of power and influence.
I think you would concede that maybe you have overstated your point.
The virtues of people not in power obviously do have positive effects, for exactly the same reason the vices of people not in power have negative effects for the world at large.
You're very short sighted with how you analyze gambling and transactions and I do not agree that only dealing in getting the most out of the short term is the way to go in life...
I think you're clearly intelligent enough to grasp the idea of strategy but seem to only like short term tactics instead.
You're very short sighted with how you analyze gambling and transactions and I do not agree that only dealing in getting the most out of the short term is the way to go in life...
I don't gamble.
Possibly I was not clear enough.
What you misunderstand, I think, is that virtue is not merely about the intended destination, but also about the journey. Principled action is a strategy more than a tactic.
I am not only talking about virtue being its own reward.
True, if you do the journey well, arriving at some particular pre-selected destination is not important for satisfaction with yourself and your life. However, making choices according to principles you believe in is more likely to lead toward similar types of destinations.
For example, when people use honesty, industriousness, responsibility, kindness, courage, and integrity as guides for choices, the choices tend to lead toward similar types of outcomes.
I think you're clearly intelligent enough to grasp the idea of strategy but seem to only like short term tactics instead.
Actually, what I have been talking about is strategy.
The strategy I am talking about is living a principled life.
No, mm, I'm just saying that people sometimes pick up bad habits from their day to day activities. No excuse for them, but it happens.
Franken apologized, said he was ashamed, the victim accepted. It's a shame when people get more insulted than the VICTIM! It's between THEM.
Mr. Moore is another matter. What he (allegedly) did was perverted and criminal! There are several victims AND evidence to show it MUST be looked into. Waving a Bible around does not a saint make! Putting someone like that in the highest levels of government is ridiculous, and a smear on Christianity!
Franken apologized, said he was ashamed, the victim accepted. It's a shame when people get more insulted than the VICTIM! It's between THEM.
I agree (depending on the offense.)
What he (allegedly) did was perverted and criminal!
I was a teacher, and I would see stories on the news of adults, sometimes teachers, get involved with teens. I would then think about my high school students, not one of which was ready for sane behavior in a romantic or sexual relationship. Many were barely mature enough to get along and stay focused while working on a group project. I had to deal with so much social trauma-drama on a daily basis.
I cannot imagine ANYONE wanting to deal with teenage girl BS, not even a teenage boy.
Consider this, within my lifetime the age of consent in some states was 13 or 14.
Currently in Alabama the age of consent is 16. With parental consent, a 14 year-old may get married. However, this parental consent is not required if the minor has already been married.
HOLY SHIT!
Can you even imagine how completely unready for a SECOND marriage a 14 year-old is?
(What was the divorce like? "Your honor, I want custody of our shared locker at my middle school.")
It is hard enough to be the parent of a 14 year-old. I cannot conceive of how much harder it must be to be the spouse of someone that age.
Hell, most people twice that age are not ready for marriage.
A pervert, is a pervert, is a pervert (or maybe even a President).
How can people call themselves Christians and even THINK a 16 year old is ready for marriage? I wonder how many of these parents allowed their daughters to date 30 yr old perverts, maybe because they went to the same church and they KNEW they were "respectable, god fearing men" that would NEVER...........!
How can people call themselves Christians and even THINK a 16 year old is ready for marriage? I wonder how many of these parents allowed their daughters to date 30 yr old perverts
Calling themselves Christians bypasses a more obvious and universal problem. The real question is how can people who have met modern 16 year-olds think a 16 year-old is ready for marriage?
It was not always this way, so the universal concept of moral absolutism needs to be tabled for a moment. We are only about a century away from when the situation you are describing as perverted was common, and even normal in the US for moral reasons (reasons base in enforcing morality.)
Especially in agricultural communities, girls were often married off by 13 or 14 so their urges would not result in the "immorality" of sex out of wedlock, and the practical disaster of unmarried pregnancy.
Because it took some time to make farms and ranches into successful economic concerns, these brides often married established men in their late 20s or 30s (and sometimes older.) My wife's great grandmother was one of these. She ultimately outlived 4 husbands.
A significant difference between then and now is that prior to the 20th century, American kids were net producers (on average.) By 12 or 13 they had been helping to support their families for years, and had been forced to develop the maturity necessary to be contributors to their families. They were both required and expected to be younger versions of adults.
That changed by 1920 or so, and ever since then, kids have been net consumers (on average). Moreover, the age by which kids become net producers has been steadily rising. (The last I heard, the AVERAGE age kids go out and live on their own is 26.)
It is reasonable to correlate this extension of adolescence and delay of adult responsibilities with delayed and even retarded social development in regards to other social relationships (like marriage) that require net contribution from all parties.
The age difference is immaterial to the moral questions. In terms of how a 14 year-old girl would be treated, it is very likely 14 year old boys are far worse choices for romantic/sexual relationships than 30 year old men. The important part is that 14 year-olds (and, frankly, most modern 26 year-olds) are simply not ready for the responsibilities and complexities of these sorts of relationships.
I do not think it is clear or supported that 30 year-olds who date (or marry) 14 year-olds are all perverts.
I do, however think it is clear that ANY people who date or marry 14 year-olds tend toward self-destruction by doing so.
I have to wonder if we aren't somehow failing the kids - they mature later and later, mentally and emotionally - even while diet and other health related advances mean they mature physically earlier. Puberty, when you're that much less mature is an extra strain, especially considering that's when we need them learning, and preparing to cope with the real world...
Puberty, when you're that much less mature is an extra strain, especially considering that's when we need them learning, and preparing to cope with the real world...
I think we are. We are making life to easy for them, protecting them too much, and depending on them too little.
As a result, in general:
- Most accomplish less than they could.
- The ones who are clueless have higher self-esteem than they deserve, and the ones who pay attention have lower self-esteem than they would were they to do hard things.
- Most have less freedom because they have little or no independence.
- Many seem to understand that they are extra, not as valuable as they might be if they had more responsibilities.
We live in the times we live in. We live with what we learn over time, what we learn from science. Laws are made (mostly) by social agreement. Society decides what is acceptable. This is a NATION. I don't go along with each state making their own rules, I think we should decide AS A NATION. The majority of the nation disagrees with 14- 16 year old sex toys! I do NOT believe that age "knows what love is", or has had a chance to experience life as an adult, and marriage is "life as an adult". In my opinion, the Bible Belt is losing all credibility with THEIR "concept of moral absolutism". Moore is a great example!
I do NOT believe that age "knows what love is", or has had a chance to experience life as an adult, and marriage is "life as an adult".
Agreed.
As I wrote earlier, our society has delayed the onset of adulthood by 10 years since I was a kid, yet we have not adjusted the laws (with the exception of the ObummerCare rule that kids can be on their parents' insurance until 26) or how we extend age-based privileges and responsibilities. We have extended childhood and adolescence out to a late age, and all the while Average Millennials are in their late 20s and have had multiple sexual/romantic relationships before they have made the first inroads into the basics of adulthood, like having their own apartments.
Consider, I never learned as much in my life as I did that first year I was _paying all my own bills. What is interesting about that experience of real independence is that it teaches self-control and how and why to delay or forgo gratification. These aspects of adulthood are not just important for financial responsibility, but are also critical elements of love, sex, and marriage.
Nobody is ready for (nor can be successful in) those sorts of relationships without well-developed capacities for self-control and self-denial.
For some reason, our society has stopped emphasizing the teaching of these things, and then people wonder why we have such high rates of unwed pregnancy/single parenthood, unpaid/delinquent debt, and divorce.
We shouldn't live in the past.
I haven't heard anybody discussing this topic suggest that we should. If we trace the changes from the past to our current circumstances, it is obvious that Alabama's age of consent is 10 years too young, at least.
In my opinion, the Bible Belt is losing all credibility with THEIR "concept of moral absolutism".
Yep. Self-righteous Christians are going straight down the moral toilet along with self-righteous celebrities and self-righteous politicians on both sides of the aisle.
Uh huh. Tell us about Bill Clinton and the plethora of leftists groping and assaulting that you ignored like the plague.
The accusations against Bill Clinton were typical whopping great lies spread by the right. Every one of the women who accused him of rape can be shown to be lying.
But when did truth ever stop the right wing from telling lies?
Uh Huh, I can tell you. They are all out of jobs. As far as Bill Clinton was concerned, he WAS "impeached" by the Congress, but kept on as President "by popular demand". "Consensual sex" among adults is NOT perverted. The effect on the marriage was between Him and Hillary and their daughter ... non of Washington's business! THEY made their peace to their own satisfaction. I can't remember any "liberals" that didn't get punished. They served at the request of the American people OR were thrown out. NONE were pedophiles that were kept on.
When was an accused pedophile elected to the liberal Senate or Congress? Never is when.
Obviously not as much of a pass as being a DA or Attorney General in AL. Getting kicked out of a mall for molesting teens is FAR more acceptable! I will say this, Franken should stay until he sees this child molester gets elected. If he doesn't, he can go. If he does get elected, he should stay ... "sauce for the goose", etc.. But then, there's also the question of Trump ... the "other" ADMITTED molester. The one that said, "When you're a star you can do anything!" Franken was a "star", BUT, not a "conservative star" ..., that's different. What?...wait...NO! Trump was not a "conservative star when he molested many of "his underlings" ... he was a CLINTON SUPPORTER! They visited each other, attended birthday parties, etc.. He gave money to their races. He was FOR "CHOICE"! He was FOR reasonable gun control! He was a...a...."liberal"! Guess what, WE don't want him ANYMOORE! (He must've realized that the conservatives were MOORE "liberal" when it came to his "hobbies")!?? :-(
But then, there's also the question of Trump ... the "other" ADMITTED molester
Not actually. If you watch the video, he never actually admits to doing anything. He tells Billy what Hollywood types can get away with, which means....
1)He admitted to doing nothing.
2)Was probably taking about actors in general.
3)He made no move on the woman he says is hot in the video, nor has she claimed that he did.
he was a CLINTON SUPPORTER! They visited each other, attended birthday parties
And you just thought he was wonderful and so did most libs.
And if he was still doing those parties as a dem, you'd love every tweet, every offshoot comment, and make excuses for anything "bad", and? So would the media...
It's so childish, the way you TRY to tear down a debate one sentence at a time. That gives you one point for every sentence. Are "points" that valuable to you?? Is that what you live for? POINTS?? If I write 20 sentences, you come back with twenty arguments, twenty points! GROW UP!
P.S. I didn't "love Bill", not my type. However, "Bill" did not destroy our National Monuments so the Koch Bros. could make money exploiting them for oil, gold and other minerals. He tried to get us health care, not destroy it, he didn't destroy relationships with our allies, didn't side with every dictator that said "nice things" about him, didn't lie an average of 5 times a day (an average that is climbing DAILY with Trumpy Bear! He didn't "feather his own nest" with tax cuts FOR THE WEALTHY, and he didn't have popularity ratings in the 30's constantly! He didn't knock China for taking our jobs, while he and his family were having hundreds of products "made in China" with jobs HE supplied. "Bill" didn't call white supremacists "very good people", he didn't put Wall Street and big bank "alligators" in charge of our money (same as putting it in their pockets!)! Bill didn't purposely destroy our environment and he DID show his IRS taxes. There was a lot to like about "Bill", that's why he survived his impeachment. Do you think Trumpy, whom you just loooooooove...will survive HIS??
There, that's a lot of sentences, a lot of "points"...enjoy your day child.
Yes you did. You also supported the Democratic Party when the Klan ran it at the height of its power, and oddly, you have never denied it. Oh, but you're sure that everyone else on the planet is a racist...
1)He created trade deals that sent jobs fleeing overseas, was involved in Chinagate, burned children alive in Waco, had a plethora of sex scandals, created a money scam (Clinton Foundation) designed for pay for play with foreign leaders, stole the money from Haiti meant to rebuild it, is married to the most corrupt politician of all time, praised Robert Byrd in speeches (kkk member), and is married to a "Goldwater girl" who says Robert Byrd was her mentor. If that was Trump's resume, the left would be in the streets burning buildings as we speak.
2)Trump isn't "destroying healthcare". He hasn't done anything with healthcare. He hasn't even touched it.
Millions who had healthcare can't afford the premiums now because of the Affordable Care Act, so it's the same as having no insurance because they now can't afford the premiums to go to the doctor, so they don't, and half of those on Obamacare when polled, say they would opt out of it if there was no punishment for being uninsured.Obama didn't give more people healthcare. He gave it to a few for free, and took it from the masses, meaning he mostly took away peoples' healthcare.
Our allies were using us because our leadership threw money and pay for play politics at them and ignored us. Of course they loved him. He sold us out to help them. I don't want a leader that these snakes love. If these snakes love your leader, that means he's protecting their interests rather than ours.
Yes, the left is still claiming his Stop and Frisk claim during the debate with Hillary was a lie despite it being proven that it wasn't. The liberal lie counters work like this.
Trump: the sky is blue.
Lie counter: "Undetermined". Half lie.
Trump: I ate a sandwich today.
Lie Counter: "Undetermined". Half lie.
And of course, as one can imagine, they weren't "lie counting" Bill or Barack. If they had, they would have looked like the youtube compilations of all of their "lies".
and he didn't have popularity ratings in the 30's constantly
People didn't vote Trump to "like him". We voted for him to act exactly like the left only on our behalf, meaning? Ram your agenda through at all costs no matter what the opposition thinks. The left can dish it. They just can't take it.
And if you look at these polls, "do you approve or like Trump" gets low numbers, but "do you support or like Trump's agenda" gets high numbers, meaning, liking Trump isn't our priority. Getting our agenda through is. And besides, being "liked" doesn't make you a good President. I "like" Bill and Obama better than Trump. And? I'd vote for Trump over both political clowns right now, today, in real life. We didn't elect him to be our buddy and "good friend". We elected him because we knew the left would be scrambling for their lives to beat him...and they are.
he didn't put Wall Street and big bank "alligators" in charge of our money (same as putting it in their pockets
You're right. They were giving him and his wife $500,000 a speech, while the Clinton Foundation became worth billions of dollars, for...absolutely no damn reason...
Hi nomenclature puppet. Beginning industrialization and beginning massive industrialization are two different equivalencies. Bill helped them industrialize on a mass scale. Explain which part whizzed over your head.
You can only get a maximum of 10 points per side in a debate. Since a perspective debate has only one side, he only got 10 from this entire thing and wasted his effort past that.
The relativity of the observer implies a dualism which allows both positions to co-exist. I'm a fatalist because I recognise the future of the universe has already happened from a perspective set outside space-time, but our own experiences contradict that because they are all set within space-time.
Interesting stance, and about as close to mine as I can get to - but ultimately so damn nihilistic. I try to avoid that. I fail. A lot.
I'd genuinely like to deny being a Nihilist, but if I want to remain honest then I probably can't. It's a shame, because in a lot of ways I'm the polar opposite of my childhood self. I was quick to believe in all manner of magics and mysteries.
Perhaps in fact, my disappointment with reality is exactly what is responsible for my adult Nihilism.
I'm not sure how you could philosophically uphold determinism, on that level. If you want a strong stance on determinism, you almost have to resort to hard science.
But science, at the quantuum physics level has proved determinism wrong.
Einstein is, sorry to say it, completely delusional with how he interpreted his findings.
Everything about his theory contradicts the very determinist outlook he professed so passionately about.
A quark (the particles the make up electrons) and, at times, even electrons themselves are so randomised that no matter what tool or math method you take to interpret their place or movement, they can always be at one of two places at one time (and you have zero idea how to interpret this as even if you follow the same one again and again, you never can back-trace their steps due to how random they can be).
He proved that reality is so random that the future can even potentially change the past. There is literally no way for determinism to be true according to quantum physics yet many quantum physicists are hypocritically upholding it.
Well, there you have it. Show them that they are wrong, and take your place in the rolls of science. Make sure to publish and get peer reviewed. That's the way science works.
I'm totally serious about this - if you have evidence that contradicts the theory of determinism, do it. I'm in no way denying that possibility - but this debate is then pretty much meaningless, in the scheme of things. You have real work to do.
Then you are conceding that the "reality outside of space-time continuum" is itself a randomised and free-will inclusive one.
Errr, no. I'm afraid that's some random gibberish you simply made up. What I said had nothing to do with randomisation, and the extension of my argument in terms of free will is that it both exists and doesn't exist, dependent upon whether the person you ask lives inside or outside of space-time.
Since you want to come up with gibberish like "the extension of my argument in terms of free will is that it both exists and doesn't exist" you can get banned.
I am not going to take shit from a troll like you.
Since you want to come up with gibberish like "the extension of my argument in terms of free will is that it both exists and doesn't exist" you can get banned.
That wasn't gibberish. He explained his point clearly that there is a dualism involved. Whether free will exists depends on whether the observer exists in space-time or outside space-time. You are presenting his conclusion while deliberately ignoring the prior explanation he gave for his conclusion. Dualisms are part of nature whether you want to accept them or not. Light, for example, travels both as a wave and as a particle, dependent on the exact same type of observational differences he invoked to explain his point.
You had no reason to ban him other than being annoyed that he busted you for posting gobbledegook.
Unlike light, free will either does or does not exist.
We aren't going to get very far if I explain something to you, and you respond by doubling down on the same false premise I just explained is false. If I type the word dualism in big capital letters will you keep ignoring it?
I banned your 'first form' and your secondary 'dual' form is now getting banned too.
Banning someone because they have a superior argument defeats the entire purpose of debating. You are just here to troll because you are an immature child who is starved of attention.
If you type it in bold, italics and underlined it won't make anything I've argued any less accurate.
He had already disproved the "accuracy" of what you said in the very post you replied to!! You ignored his explanation and repeated the same false premise!! You have given no reasoning why you believe free will cannot exist in a state of duality and he gave good reasoning why it can. All you have done is make an arbitrary claim in response to sound reasoning.
Time is a factor of our universe, and it has a specific direction. Time is not a factor outside our universe, and hence all events must be viewed simultaneously, whether past, present or future. This precludes free will for an observer living outside space-time, but it does not preclude free will for an observer living within space-time.
You're an idiot and a troll. You belong in Kindergarden, not on a debating site.
A Duality-enforced reality has a physical realm that is deterministic (which is false as quarks can be in 2 places at once and have totally randomised clashes with antimatter/antiparticles/antiquarks). The other 'dual' aspect is a free-will mental and emotional aspect of reality that is experienced and not disproved at all by physical laws.
So before you talk shit, learn your own philosophy.
If all decisions... All actions, inactions, assumptions and conclusions are inevitable and furthermore inescapable then why hold anyone accountable for immorality? They couldn't help it, they inevitably had to do so as their will isn't free enough to escape their predetermined thought process.
The question in the middle of the prompt (why hold anyone accountable for immorality?) is answered by the rest of the prompt.
Because ALL actions are inevitable and inescapable, any action that holds someone accountable for immorality is also inevitable and inescapable.
For example, some particular criminal commits a crime because the universe is deterministically ordered such that he do so. It is ridiculous to say there is an inconsistency or an injustice in a jury finding him guilty and a judge sentencing him to prison.
The jury and the judge are bound by exactly the same deterministic principles that bound the criminal. "They couldn't help it, they inevitably had to do so as their will isn't free enough to escape their predetermined thought process."
Why not have anarchy instead? Why not lynch mob anyone we momentarily feel like lynching?
I can only assume that, because we are not lynching anyone, it is because we have not been predetermined to have anarchy instead.
Seriously, I am a free will hardliner. There is no such thing as a situation wherein people have no control over our own behavior.
I do not care what your childhood was like, what stress you were under, your emotional set, or anything else. You had choices, and are responsible for them.
Otherwise there is no virtue for choosing justice over revenge, labor over sloth, kindness over avarice, etc..
There's a concept called forgiveness and another called reformation. I'm a much more cunning person than I was as a child and a much smarter one too but the irony is the child me would get shunned for saying the shit I think much worse now, I just learned how to manipulate and how to avoid certain people.
How did I learn that? Did my parents know the right vs wrong crowd? Hell no, many of parents friends' children were far from role models. I learned it by befriending the wrong people and letting myself fuck up a few times.
If a society never ever forgives that's just as idiotic as a nihilistic one as neither comprehends the idea of turning former criminals into brilliant citizens. You can't know for sure how wrong you are until something life whams-bams you right in the face. This is just a fact.
My point has consistently been that free will is absolute. Any appearance otherwise in my other posts was ironic, intended to point out how absurd it is to suggest people do not have free will.
For example, my response to the prompt was to point out the logical inconsistency of saying some folks do not have the capacity for choice, but that others do.
I learned it by befriending the wrong people and letting myself fuck up a few times.
Learning from mistakes is yet another indication of free will in action.
You freely chose to make bad decisions.
You experienced the results.
Later you freely chose to behave differently, based on prior experience.
Good for you! This is the power of embracing our capacity to exercise free will. Without it we do not have the ability to become better people.
Because you are using human standards of justice and morality.
The fall of humanity occured when we ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. What does that mean? It means that we have the knowledge of good and evil, but we are not really the rightful judges of these things. Taking ourselves as the rightful judge of these things is why we keep screwing up. It's ok, this is how we were made. We are by nature, creatures of discrimination. It also can't be avoided, though maybe an ice pick to the forehead might work as medication.
What is good? Truth.
What is evil? Falsehood.
The universe is ultimately just with this worldview because everything happens because it had to happen that way. It was God's will that everything happened the way it did.
Why do people think reality is evil? Because they think they are the rightful judge of things. They are leaning on their own understanding. They are taking for themselves an idol before God. They put their faith in vain imaginings. It is better to have faith in The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
You think that determinism defeats justice/morality, but it is quite the opposite. There is no justice/morality without determinism.
This is the will of God. If everything was created by the word of God, and the word is God, that means that God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscience.
What determines morality? Justice? Only the righteous judge, and that is God.
Without God, there is no justice or morality. Without God, there is nothing at all. This world would not exist if it was not for God.
You're argument seems conflicted. You state that we are incapable of judging what is good or evil. Then you, le human, state that good is truth and evil is falsehood.
You then introduce our universe with a deterministic-sounding description of its past, but isn't god meant to have given free will? Are these not mutually exclusive?
Then you blatantly exempt yourself from your own predefined rules with a bunch of assumptions on the psychology of people. Can you please explain this to me in a way that doesn't make you sound hypocritical? I'm still willing to admit personal bias, but am beginning to reach the point of no return.
Perhaps you are not wrong about god's existence, but your interpretation of his work must surely be.
And how does Bell's theorem, which basically states you cannot use algebra to solve quantum mechanical problems, have any relevance with your argument? What, you think quantum mechanics variables are undeterminable? Because to an extent involving probability and logic, they are.
It can be referred to as the cosmic joke. I am referring to the absurdity of attempting to express what is fundamentally transcendent of abstraction and uncreated through the medium of abstraction and creation.
That is why you have The Holy Spirit(The Spirit of Truth) through The Son (The Most Perfect Image) to witness The Father (The Supreme and Ultimate Reality).
Through a glass, though darkly. The relationship you have with God is very personal.
It isn't about me. My personal righteousness has little to do with anything. Indeed, I am not righteous. Only God is righteous. The same God that all of creation testifies of. The God I speak of is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, and the secret is in that Name.
My interpretation is my interpretation. Interpretations are created things. God is Un-Created. That is what it means to be The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. It is not a contingent existence, but all existence is contingent on it. It is The Necessary Existence.
Created things are doubtful things. Certainly. You can be more certain that The Supreme and Ultimate Reality exists than anything else in creation, and though certainty and knowledge are creation, God is The Uncreated. However, it is through creation that we relate to God. That is how it is done. We live off The Word of God. When we breath, we breath in The Word. When we eat, we eat the flesh of The Word. When we drink, we drink the blood of The Word. The Word sustains us. You can be more certain of the existence of God than anything, and it is only through his word, with the spirit of truth, and seeing how they are One. Make no mistake, God is The Truth. If this was not the case, then we wouldn't really be talking about God. The fact that you experience anything at all is a testament that there is some form of existence. If there is some form of existence, there is reality. Experience shows us that reality as we perceive it is not reality as it truly is. Therefore, what we experience cannot be ultimate reality. Now we have a reality as it is perceived through a tool. So to the observer, or in the proper context, what is being perceived is a reality so far as perceptions are reality, but the tool being used to measure in large part determines or has the greatest impact on what is being measured . In other words, our experience is the result of a creative process. Our experience is created. See how this discrepancy between what we perceive and how things actually are relates to the idea of determinism and how it comes naturally from God's will? To truly realize God, what makes God holy and set apart from created things is essential. If you are looking at a created being, you are not looking at God, you are looking at an image of God at best. What does it mean that "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us"? It means when I speak of Jesus, The Word of God made flesh, I am talking about all of creation. Creation is the flesh of The Word. The entire universe is the flesh of God's word. Believe that all is done by The Will of God, and make peace with The Supreme and Ultimate Reality!
Free will can be experimentally proven to be an illusion. It can be observed experimentally that our will is limited. It should be obvious, on deep reflection, how there is an entire universe of causality weighing down on what actually makes up any reality and experience. When you look at the grand scheme of things, the very idea of free will can be seen as human arrogance. Yet it has been determined that we experience what some call "free will". So be it. So is the will of God. Making peace with and loving God is easily the best thing anyone can do for themselves. Sometimes the most selfless thing you can do is be selfish, and sometimes the most selfish thing you can do is be selfless. Seek first The Kingdom of God. God's will on Earth as it is in heaven. Surrendering to God is where all this leads. Everything you are doing has been determined by The Word and will of God. The free will is God. There is only One. There is no free will without God. My will is God's will, and so all is perfect. All is complete. I am a witness to the last day, the resurrection of the dead. I am a witness to The Holy Catholic Church. I am a witness to Christ's death and resurrection. I see how the realization of God is the realization of salvation, how "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you". Amen.
I am nothing. I must become less so that THE WORD becomes more. All flesh is grass, scorched by the sun and blown away by the wind. The Word of God is eternal. With the spirit of Truth you can believe The Word, and believe God. Then you can see how "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Then you can see for yourself that God is Salvation.
It's the good news. Rest assured, God has conquered death.
It has been soundly proven scientifically to me that isolating all variables in an experiment is impossible, and that science cannot be greater than The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. Science means "knowledge". Bell's Theorem happens to be a mathematical proof of this that I think is beautiful.
Yet, my faith is not in knowledge. I am not preaching gnosticism. I preach that God is greater, always greater.
Can you explain how determinism doesn't defeat justice/morality?
If we didn’t live in a causal universe, events and actions would be the product of truly random chance, which would indeed defeat justice.
As it is, people don’t act randomly. They act for reasons. This includes acting for reasons of justice or morality, which necessarily means accounting for the nature of the suspect action and the reason underlying it. None of which could be possible without the causal nature of the universe.
(A separate debate is whether causality necessitates determinism, but I assume many readers believe it is the case)
As it is, people don’t act randomly. They act for reasons. This includes acting for reasons of justice or morality, which necessarily means accounting for the nature of the suspect action and the reason underlying it. None of which could be possible without the causal nature of the universe.
The use of the phrase acting for reasons of necessarily implies free will, otherwise the reasons would be irrelevant, and the phrase (in a deterministic and causal universe) would be reacting to the forces of.
(A separate debate is whether causality necessitates determinism, but I assume many readers believe it is the case)
Maybe not.
I think determinism necessarily includes causality, but causality does not necessarily imply determinism.
For example, a universe that includes cause and effect could also include random factors . Some of the random factors could be initial causes, and some could be effects of multiple coinciding forces. This would be a causal universe that is not deterministic.
By the same token, there could be a causal universe without randomness, but with free will (assuming that free will is actually free and not a function of randomness.) When people exercise free will in choosing how to respond to events/circumstances, they are choosing to some degree what effect will proceed from a combination of causes (i.e., the forces of the circumstance combined with the choice of action in that circumstance.
The use of the phrase acting for reasons of necessarily implies free will, otherwise the reasons would be irrelevant
“Reasons” are the word we use for “causes” when discussing human action. The argument against free will is not the argument that people do not have reasons, its that causality means they don’t choose their reasons.
We can interchange reason and cause concerning inanimate objects too, it’s just less common language. An 8 ball doesn’t choose the movement of the cue ball, though that movement is the reason the 8 ball went in the corner pocket.
The argument against free will is not the argument that people do not have reasons, its that causality means they don’t choose their reasons.
and
An 8 ball doesn’t choose the movement of the cue ball, though that movement is the reason the 8 ball went in the corner pocket.
People may have multiple reasons, some of which are contradict each other. The 8-ball does not have agency to choose from alternate or multiple forces/ causes.
Unlike differing physical forces that combine to determine the path, etc. of the 8-ball, people may choose only some of the reasons; the reasons do not combine or cancel each other.
This is why reasons and causes MUST remain distinct for the purpose of the conversation, otherwise equivocation will undo us.
This is why reasons and causes MUST remain distinct for the purpose of the conversation
The topic itself merges the two. The notion that determinism defeats morality implies that our reasons, though highly complex and often hidden from us, are little more the mechanistic causes. My point is that a lack of causation would actually defeat morality and that morality actually relies on causation.
We weigh and balance various causes against our own values in order to choose how we proceed, on the assumption that our actions will have predictable causal outcomes. We call this agency, but it is determined causally. Agency cannot exist without causality.
When your actions can be said to have causes, your free will is not undermined. We call those causes reasons. Rather, free will is undermined if your actions have no causes. If you choose your actions, but choose them for literally no reason, if there is literally no cause, then your action is truly random. If your actions are random you do not have free will. You are 100% subject to chaos. It is only if your actions are caused that you can be said to have free will.
Absolutely and, I think, obviously true for the reason you discuss. My point was that our ability to select our reasons for our actions is among the clearest arguments against in favor of free will.
If your actions are random you do not have free will.
True. However, I think that some degree of randomness is probably required to keep the universe from being deterministic.
My point was that our ability to select our reasons for our actions is among the clearest arguments against in favor of free will
I assume you mean in favor of free will. People often argue that you do not have free will be a you do not choose the kind of person you are. The kind of person you are determines the kinds of choices you make.
I think that some degree of randomness is probably required to keep the universe from being deterministic
I believe that determinism, the belief that the future is set, is an illusion based on the fact that the past is set. If causality truly does imply determinism, then my point still remains. There is not free will without causality. The extent to which true randomness is involved in our universe does not really alter whether you make choices or not.
I believe that determinism, the belief that the future is set, is an illusion based on the fact that the past is set. If causality truly does imply determinism, then my point still remains.
It seems to me that the deterministic model is explained or supported by two ways of looking at things. I think both are faulty.
- 1 - When looking at the 4-dimensional universe, one would see matter and energy at all times and in all places as a set piece, immutable.
I think this is faulty because it disregards how the particles and energy came to be at particular points in space-time, and it fails to account for the relationships between matter and energy.
- 2 - The universe is a giant analog of a frictionless billiard table problem from a unit on Newtonian physic. The particles all have fixed starting positions, and are then acted upon by a set of forces according to the laws of physics. As the universe develops the interactions of matter and energy become increasingly complex, but are still defined by the laws of physics in non-random ways. The interactions of the particles and energy in brains works the same way, so we think we are choosing freely, despite the fact that the illusion of choice is the result of immutable physical forces in defined ways on particles.
This , like the frictionless billiard problems, always and only works if forces are never applied randomly after the initial application of force on the universe's matter. If there is any randomness, then our thoughts are not absolutely set by the initial force and trajectory of the pool queue.
To be fair, at this point, we have no way to tell whether what physicists perceive as random is truly random. It is possible that it is just according to some pattern they do not recognize, or some predictable/non-random force of which they are ignorant.
Frankly, I believe in free will because it is the only winning bet.
-If there is no free will, there is no change regardless of my beliefs (which are deterministically set, anyway.)
-If there is free will, and I behave as if there is not, I give up the control I would otherwise have had over my life.
-If there is free will, and I behave as if there free will, I can help to shape my life as I want it to be.
This exchange is fascinating, and I just want to show appreciation. It makes sense, what you are exploring here, with one caveat - that determinism isn't simply a part of our genes. It truly bothers me that science is finding that conclusion - it just doesn't seem right. I can see proclivities due to genetics, but absolute determinism just can't make sense to me. If I have two choices set before me, both equal in merit in my eyes, I simply cannot grasp that my genes knew which I would choose, when I didn't.
Sorry to interrupt with my rant - it's an issue that frustrates me. Marcus, that second point is fantastic. It really throws some light on the subject - I think.
determinism isn't simply a part of our genes....I can see proclivities due to genetics, but absolute determinism just can't make sense to me.
I have seen nothing in scientific research or publications that suggests that genes are destiny. (Although, popular articles written by non-scientists sometimes suggest it.)
What I do see, however is that, as you observe, genes define many limits and create some tendencies. For example, genes determine the baseline testosterone level in men. The higher the level of testosterone, the greater the tendency toward aggression. (This is oversimplified, obviously.) While it is true that this explains why most violent criminals are men, it also demonstrates that genes are not destiny. There are many men with high testosterone levels, and strong tendencies toward aggression who do not engage in violent behavior, but instead channel that aggression into other outlets like competitive sports, or argumentativeness and debate.
I think we are all dealt a hand of cards that includes, among other things, our genetic capabilities and limitations. After that, we decide what to do with the hand we are dealt.
Yes you did, liar. You claimed the higher the hormone level the greater the tendency toward aggression. Writing it like a pseudo-intellectual ponce instead of a normal human being doesn't get you a pass, I'm afraid. It just makes you an idiot for not understanding what you wrote.
What part of "This is oversimplified, obviously" did you not understand?
The problem with what you wrote was not that it was simple. The problem was that it was factually incorrect. Understand?
I asked what you mean by free will because you keep invoking randomness as indicative of free will. But if you are subject to randomness, your choices are no more free than if you are subject to determinism, they are simply more chaotic.
The fact that you make conscious choices is not an illusion. You determine how to proceed by considering external variables in accordance with internal variables. You choose your actions, but you don’t choose the variables, and you are the internal variable. In other words, the choices you make depend on the kind of person you are, and you can’t choose the kind of person you are.
The point here is that whether causality equals determinism or not, free will relies on it, as does morality and justice.
I asked what you mean by free will because you keep invoking randomness as indicative of free will.
I do not mean to imply that randomness is indicative of free will, but rather that some randomness is necessary for free will. Without randomness, universal and consistent laws of physics would act on the beginning state of matter and energy in the universe with an absolute consistency that would create a deterministic state of the universe.
The term possible outcomes would be applicable only because we did not have enough data to predict which was the inevitable outcome. With some randomness in the universe, there are no inevitabilities.
But if you are subject to randomness, your choices are no more free than if you are subject to determinism, they are simply more chaotic.
The function of the randomness is to break the universality of determinism. This makes it possible for there to be things to choose amongst, because the path of the universe is not set.
This is not to say that randomness creates free will.
It seems that, regardless of how we think free will is constructed, it must have a set of conditions that make it possible to operate.
- If the universe is entirely random, choices can have no effect because the results are random anyway.
- If the universe is locked down by a deterministic interplay of the laws of physics with matter and energy, then it is impossible for free will to affect matter, because its paths are predetermined.
- However, if there is enough randomness in a generally consistent universe regulated by otherwise strict physical laws, whatever non-physical aspects of consciousness and agency as exist are capable of exerting force on the universe.
Don't ask me what I mean by non-physical aspects of consciousness and agency. All I know is that if these are merely the functions of self-aware physical processes, then you are correct that freedom is a logical impossibility, regardless of what our experiences seem to tell us.
When we judge someone it is essential that we consider the possibility of the person being good and having the options to be able to choose. I'd like to think we prosecute for harmful decisions not harmful circumstances. For example you don't judge a falling brick for killing a human the same way as a human killing a human, presumably because:
1) the brick is predictable in it's affect in harming the human, it has a very restricted number of conceivable options.
2) the brick has an extremely limited ability to choose between any of the hypothetical options that may or may not result in the human's death.
If the universe is deterministic it violates the concepts of both a variety of options and the ability to choose. We all become falling bricks. Justice and morality become useless concepts for use against each other.
If the universe does operate in a deterministic fashion, we are clearly blissfully unaware of it, as it hasn't stopped us from foolishly dictating the moral relevance of people's actions on the whim of a jury from that period of time.
Whats more, if the actions taken by a person are predetermined, we can't suddenly stop and take the bigger picture from there; the moral judgement passed is also predetermined.
What I think is somewhat certain is that the argument 'determinism isn't a thing because then justice/morality isn't real' is completely false. Bad logical sequence. It is possible that the universe is deterministic while our concepts of justice/morality are imaginary.
If the universe does operate in a deterministic fashion, we are clearly blissfully unaware of it, as it hasn't stopped us from foolishly dictating the moral relevance of people's actions on the whim of a jury from that period of time.
Perhaps we only believe we have free will because we are predetermined to do so.
I know that you personally don't believe this but since this is an extremely common witty remark made by the other side I want to dispute you here and now to explain why this is a wrong line of argumentation.
The version of reality where everything is inevitable and definite would have absolutely no reason to give us the illusion of consciousness or free will. So, if you argue that the 'perfectly organised' reality has random errors or glitches such as consciousness and the illusion of free will then you are already conceding it's not perfectly determined at all.
The version of reality where everything is inevitable and definite would have absolutely no reason to give us the illusion of consciousness or free will. So, if you argue that the 'perfectly organised' reality has random errors or glitches such as consciousness and the illusion of free will then you are already conceding it's not perfectly determined at all.
Not at all.
First, the phrase would have absolutely no reason is irrelevant, because a deterministic universe does not have reasons, per se. The universe from beginning to end is constructed as a whole piece, and the relationships are static, immutable by choice or reason. None of the pieces can be moved from their relationships in space and time.
Second, consciousness and the illusion of free will are just characteristics, like specific shapes of some objects, or the number of neutrons in a particular atom at a particular time. The illusion of free will is no more an error or glitch than are isotopes.
Yes. Do you fully understand the word ‘justified’?
Rather than asking patronizing questions, why don’t you just attempt to explain yourself? Is it because you aren’t articulate enough to explain your position? If that’s the reason, I will except your downvote and move along.
In the model that is the random free-will possessing universe, the different parts of the universe are coincidentally linked at any moment but not organised or linked in a preset manner that is supposed to in any way make sense or need explanation.
Thus, in the non-deterministic universe, different parts needn't justify other parts. On the other hand, in the inverse scenario all of the universe has to make complete sense when compared with other aspects of it.
In the model that is the random free-will possessing universe
You falsely mistake randomness for free will.
the different parts of the universe are ... not organised or linked in a preset manner that is supposed to in any way make sense or need explanation
Human inability to explain or make sense of some aspect of the universe should not be taken to mean that aspect is somehow supposed to not make sense. No part of the universe needs explanation or justification, that’s a human desire. Suppose and need have nothing to do with it.
Thus, in the non-deterministic universe, different parts needn't justify other parts
Since we do not have a true understanding of the origins of the universe, it can very well be deterministic despite having aspects that cannot be explained by proceeding elements. This is not because causality is flawed, rather our knowledge is insufficient.
You make the same common mistake concerning free will that most people make. You believe that if your actions lack a cause, that somehow implies free will, while if your actions have a cause, you are somehow not free.
You asked me to justify why I said that in a random universe different parts don't need to justify each other but that in anything other than a coincidental, random reality the different aspects need to interlink in a totally sensible fashion.
I did this and now you start defending determinism against free will but what I was justifying was a specific statement that you demanded me to justify.
what I was justifying was a specific statement that you demanded me to justify
In the model that is a random free-will possessing universe, you shouldn’t have to justify your statement, according to you. You can choose it randomly of your own free will, no?
Your desire to show good will caused you to argue your position, despite your position being that things in this universe do not need justification. So which position proves out? The one that says you do not need justification due to randomness; or the determinism that caused you to justify this position?
I understand your position, that some things in this universe have no apparent cause. This does not mean they have no actual cause. Your view seems to hold randomness as a sort of god of the gaps. Though randomness does nothing for the free will issue
It's not clear to me why determinism would defeat either justice or morality, because it isn't clear to me why free will is necessary to either in the first place. Why does an agent have to be a free agent in order for them to be held to moral account?
If determinism is true then moral judgement of an agent is simply an observation of their inescapable character. It doesn't matter that they can't choose to be good or bad. What matters is whether they are, and whether we are determined to respond accordingly (which, generally speaking, does seem to be the case).
Incidentally, I'm not sure that defeating justice and morality would be such a bad thing after all...
Why does an agent have to be a free agent in order for them to be held to moral account?
Morality is predicated on the concept expressed in the phrase you ought to do...notyou cannot help but do...
Intrinsic to morality, then is agency, because ought specifically implies there are multiple options, that you are capable of choosing from among them, and there is one that is morally preferred.
I wasn't arguing from nihilism; there are moralists who are also determinists who would disagree with OP, and I'm drawing in part from my understanding of their views in my response (as well as just using logic to recognize that you cannot use your claim to prove itself).
You're begging the question. Asserting that morality is predicated on oughtness when you construe oughtness to necessarily entail agency is effectively a restatement of the original claim I'm calling into question in the first place.
Why is morality necessarily predicated on oughtness? And why does oughtness necessarily entail agency?
Explaining morality to a nihilist is truly identical in functionality to explaining mathematics to a 12 year old child who sleeps through every math class and never does their homework if they can get away with it.
You don't even see a need for the thing you want to study in the first place so how are we able to teach you?
Do you really think that one cannot have an ability and interest in understanding a belief they don't hold merely because they don't hold it? Or are you just irrationally prejudiced against nihilism?
There is no reason that my nihilistic views should preclude either an interest or ability in understanding others' moral beliefs. Ethics as a field interests me both as a means unto itself and as an ends. I find the mental exercise of studying moral models fun, and consequently I've actually studied more ethics than the average moralist (and neither my colleagues nor professors have found me deficient in my ability to study ethics). Beyond the immediate pleasure, though, moral cognition is a socially pervasive phenomenon that affects me so I have an immediate stake in understanding the moral beliefs of those I interact with. Understanding others' moral views provides insights into who they are, and this is particularly important for me when it comes to being able to know and respect the people I care about (and, yes, I care about people... morality is no more necessary to being prosocial than religion is to being moralistic). If anything, the greatest obstacle to my learning others' ethics is their ignorance of and self-righteous prejudice against my nihilistic views.
Incidentally, my interest and ability aren't even relevant to the preceding discussion. Whether I can understand the argument isn't a reason for OP being incapable of making it in the first place and, frankly, using a claim to prove itself is so obviously fallacious even a 12 year old who hates logic class could pick it out. Too bad for you that ad hominem and hyperbole aren't truly identical to a sound argument.
You can talk your way out of feeling guilt or believing in any justice whatsoever.
I don't need you to teach me that Nihilism is logically sound, I already know it is. What you fail to grasp is that logic isn't how to stop suicidal thinking and depression.
Nihilists are all clinically depressed people who think their illness is wisdom, they don't understand that logic is not a cure to depression.
I was not teaching you that nihilism is logically sound. I was explaining why your presumptions about my interest in and ability to understand ethics were unsound.
But given your concession that nihilism is logically sound, it seems evident that I'm proceeding according to reason whereas you are operating from emotional aversion to the natural conclusions of logic. Nothing I've said suggests I'm trying to talk myself out of feeling guilt or believing in justice; I didn't adopt nihilistic views to avoid any feelings or guilt or about justice, but because the behaviors of others rendered my faith in those things nonviable and logic suggested the alternative once I learned to let go of my irrational attachments.
I've never claimed that logic can stop suicidal thinking and depression nor that any illness is wisdom, but I'm not surprised that you've continued your behavior of arguing from unfounded assumptions. I'll acknowledge a seeming correlation between nihilism and depression... however it is an error to attribute the cause of this depression to nihilism, rather than to the original attachments formed to unsound concepts like morality and justice which cannot withstand experience or reason.
Nihilism ultimately says 'only my perception is reality, all is subjective' so then I can use my nihilist reality to turn it into one where morality is real and matters.
Checkmate, subjectivist Nihilist amoral psychopath bingle-bongle nonsense spewer you just got stabbed with your own knife TELL ME HOW IT FEELS BOY, TELL ME HOW IT FEELS.
That's not what nihilism is, but given the fervor of your prejudices I'm not the least surprised by your confident ignorance. Nothing about nihilism says that one's subjective perception is reality, that all is subjective, or that our views can alter any reality that might exist.
Insofar as I can be said to exist and have an emotional state, I'd say your amateurish bravado inspires vague amusement. But really you overestimate both your own significance to me and the import of philosophical conclusions.
You are still arguing from a tautology without explaining why that tautology is necessarily true. Your claim that all moral rules consist in ought statements is not borne out either by dictionary definitions, or by more elaborated accounts of morality.
There are numerous different conceptions of morality, only some of which rely upon ought statements. I've already outlined one such version, wherein moral judgement and accountability are predicated not upon moral agency but moral character. There is no obvious reason that morality cannot adhere in is/are statements (e.g. it is bad that P did x, or P is bad for doing x) or that it can only adhere in ought statements (e.g. P ought not to have done x).
There are also many compatabilist accounts of determinism with morality, such as Bertrand Russell's arguments laid out in his Elements of Ethics" where he argues that the effects of determinism on morality are overstated (and, actually, that the adverse effects of free will are understated*).
Moreover, you acknowledge that the ought in question is subjunctive and that therefore the existence of agency is not necessarily entailed by the use of ought in moral discourse. All that is needed, then, is that people hypothesize that agency does exist. Determinism being true does not preclude that practice, so even granting your assumptions your conclusion does not follow.
If you cannot help but choose to do the things you do and never have the capacity to decide the other option in a situation than the one you decide, then you cannot 'ought' to do anything as whatever you end up doing was the only thing you could have done.
To 'ought' to do something can only arise when you had the capacity for indeterminate decision-making given the current moment as well as the mental IQ to consciously be aware of the options at hand (one of which will be the one you ought to do, the other/s the one/s you ought not to do).
Come back when you understand logic and English and stop preaching psychopathic Nihilism and then turning around and saying you comprehend a thing about morality.
I never said I think compatibilism is correct (I don't). I brought up Russel to demonstrate my broader point that marcusmoon's definitions are not as fixed as they presumed.
Incidentally, macrusmoon has already acknowledged that oughtness is subjunctive such that actual free will is not required for morality; at this point, you're disputing them as much as you are me.
My primary argument remains that the connection between morality and oughtness is not a necessary relationship (i.e. is/are conditionality of morality instead of ought conditionality), so your points about oughtness aren't really relevant here.
Again, none of my arguments here have anything to do with nihilism. The only reason that's come up at all in this thread is because you brought it up out of some pathological obsession with denigrating it (but sure, I'm the one preaching). I've already repudiated your baseless claim that I can't understand anything about morality because of my nihilistic views, and I'm not going to rehash points you didn't counter the first time around.
There is something ironic about accusing someone of not understanding logic or English when your own reading comprehension falls so tragically short. Your emotional prejudice against nihilism has made you lose track of what's even being discussed between marcusmoon and myself.
Yep, and I just explained why that doesn't matter in reference to my argument.
The ants are so disappointed in you right now. They're crying all over the imaginary chessboard. Because they choose to and it's the moral thing to do.
I would unban you, I definitely ought to, but since I lack free will and all, Imma be unable to complete that conscious decisions making process oopsie...
We are a long way from my beginning point which was no more than the concept of morality assumes that free will exists, and that, therefore the assumption of determinism is incompatible with the assumption of morality. This was basically an answer to the prompt question.
You are still arguing from a tautology without explaining why that tautology is necessarily true. Your claim that all moral rules consist in ought statements is not borne out either by dictionary definitions, or by more elaborated accounts of morality.
The fact that morality is paired with and juxtaposed against immorality assumes choice and agency. Were there no free will, there can be no morality/immorality. I was merely illustrating this with the discussion of ought/should etc. because these words imply choice by being subjunctive. The outcome of ought/should is uncertain, whereas the outcome of will is certain. Will is future perfect, NOT subjunctive.
I've already outlined one such version, wherein moral judgement and accountability are predicated not upon moral agency but moral character. There is no obvious reason that morality cannot adhere in is/are statements (e.g. it is bad that P did x, or P is bad for doing x) or that it can only adhere in ought statements (e.g. P ought not to have done x).
The reason I use the ought statements is that it is an easy shorthand for choice, with a preferred option clearly stated.
Unless we designate P as inherently and irredeemably bad regardless of P's choices, what is implied by the statements "it is bad that P did x," or "P is bad for doing x" is that P should/ought not have done x, and had P refrained from x, then P would not have been bad.At some earlier point P could have refrained from x, and arrived at our current moment as good, and continued on in a state of grace. Alas, P is bad, as demonstrated by the fact that the miscreant did x.
This way of looking at it assumes that character is defined by actions. As such, it assumes free will.
If you like, we could designate that character determines actions, and that actions never determine character. In this case, P is bad no matter what. As a result of P's badness, P cannot do good things, but inevitably does bad things. This obviously assumes determinism.
Ultimately, no, I can't. That's something that rather bothers me. I have to assume that Sam Harris, a true genius, and expert in the field, understands it better than I do - but it still bothers me.
You have completely failed to understand my stance, and his point. My stance is that I can't explain it. Arguing against that point would be utterly useless and even ridiculous. His point is strictly scientific - he is a neurobiologist, and according to the best current scientific understanding in the way genetics, the brain, etc. physically work, determinism is the most correct conclusion. If you want to argue against that, you're arguing against science, and a scientist to represent it. Have fun.
That doesn't feel right to me, but I recognize that things are not always simply as they seem.
You can't. Sorry, science beats all the philosophizing in the known universe. If we understand black holes, that's the explanation for black holes, accept it or not, no matter how good a debate you can put up against it.
I always accept the best scientific explanation of a phenomena until I or someone else can prove it wrong, and I always acknowledge that that understanding may be wrong. You cannot literally debate science, as long as you understand and accept its methodology.
You are mixing two different things, a description of reality and the subjective experience of that reality. Determinism is incompatible with our subjective experience of the world. We seem to be hard wired to believe that we have a free will and that people make choices that deserve moral approbation or punishment. However, our intuitive certainty of free will does not make it true of the external world.
As a description of the external world, determinism seems to be more logically coherent. It seems to me free will does not add anything to the description of reality. It is only posited to help justify our intuitive experience of the world.
Morality does not seem to be a fundamental part of our description of reality. At best it can seen as laws of rational behavior between interdependent individuals with competing objectives. But that is not what you are talking about. You want a real meaning behind "moral desert" and "justice". These ideas do not have a place in a materialistic description of reality. However, they are fundamental to our experience of reality. When you are acting in the capacity of a social scientist describing human behavior, you should not need to use the subjective language of "justice" or "rights" or other words like them. In all other cases, as a person living in and experiencing a social reality, our intuitive moral categories are fundamental to how we think and cooperate.
It is important to realize that these categories are not entirely real and should not be followed off cliffs. We must not be dogmatic in our adherence to them. An exploration into the aforementioned "laws of rational behavior between interdependent individuals with competing objectives" can help us domesticate the content of our moral thinking: the rights people have, the ranking of virtues, the extent of personal responsibility, etc.
Okay but what you are not understanding is that metaphysical philosophy is about explaining... Not describing reality... Not narrating the experience of one's subjective reality but explaining how both can coincide in whatever we call 'reality'.
This is a task of explaining, not describing and determinism doesn't explain shit but does describe what a control freak or immoral person may wish reality was in order to scapegoat their brutal ways of living.
I'm not sure I understand your point. My point is that a common mistake made in metaphysics is mixing descriptions of reality with explanations of our experience of that reality. Since I believe that not all of our a priori assumptions of about reality are true, we should be careful when making decisions based on them.
This is important because I think we can know that reality is not how we believe it to be. For example, some people may be afraid to walk out onto a glass bridge over a large height no matter how much they know about the tolerances of bridge. They know that it is safe, but they cannot believe it. I think it is similar with moral intuitions. We may know that a certain brain defect causes violent behavior, but no matter how well we know that fact, if one such person hurts us or someone we care about, it will be almost impossible to suppress the moral beliefs we have about the need for retributive justice. However, this emotion evolved to manage bad actors who are capable of changing behavior. If this is not the case, we should use our reasoning abilities to design a more appropriate response.
I mean changing society's norms to reflect a more rational morality. For example, we may reflect that homosexuality does not have harmful externalities and that our moral indignation against this behavior does not have a rational justification. Moral leaders can then set out to undermine the norms, rights, virtues, taboos, etc that are used to emotionally justify the persecution of gays. We shift the meaning of marriage and sex from procreation to love, and remove from the concept of love any dependence on gender. We remove the validity of religious proscriptions from the public sphere. We shift the ordering of values to place free expression above conformity. The result is hopefully a more rational morality that is still viewed as legitimate.
Notice that in this process we are always using the language of traditional morality in effecting change. We don't design new morals, we change existing morality slowly and continuously from the inside, emphasizing the good parts, suppressing the bad. We treat morality as something organic. This is why I like the word "domestication" to refer to this process.
I don't believe the reality of anything referred to by names like "right" or the like. I just have doubts regarding our ability to publicly design and implement a new morality.
