-
God and antinatalismExpert agreement is good evidence. If it wasn’t then why do you keep bringing up dunning and Kruger? You’re implying that someone is simply misunderstanding your argument due to lack of expertise. Which is to say that someone with expertise would understand it (If even the experts don’t get it then why ask about expertise at all?). Your behavior demonstrates that you think expertise matters. And yet you think that you being the literal only person in the world that thinks the way you do is not a red flag. Then again, consistency is not your forte.
-
God and antinatalism
I don't need therapy to reason like you do. I need a head injury. — Bartricks
Most people here are reasoning like I do and I find it highly unlikely that they all have head injuries. Again, it’s very statistically unlikely that everyone has it wrong and you are the only one that has it right. Should be a red flag.
it has now become a technical term in philosophy since Harry Frankfurt published a book on the subject — Bartricks
“speech intended to persuade without regard for truth”
Fits the bill I’d say.
You have not shown how my case is "bullshit" — Bartricks
Yes I have.
You have simply ignored it or failed to recognize it. But oh well. — Bartricks
Anyways hurry up and say the dunning Kruger thing so I can clear the notification and go about my day.
And get a therapist. Or neurosurgeon. -
God and antinatalism
You don't know what 'begging the question' means, clearly. — Bartricks
“This is clearly so” as a first premise in proving whether something is so is not begging the question?
Look, I have already explained why 'X is just' does not mean "X is permitted" or "X is wrong" or "X is right". I have given examples illustrating this. This is pointless, like I say. — Bartricks
And I’ve responded to this:
The fact that doing X would bring about a just state of affairs, does not entail that it is right to do X.
— Bartricks
Correct. But had you undergone the reflections, and discovered that X is a just state of affairs, then yes it does entail it. The only situation it doesn’t is when you intend to do something wrong, but it ends up bringing about a just state of affairs. — khaled
But you’re right this is pointless.
Get a therapist. -
God and antinatalismYou'd think "well, if everything that happens here is deserved, then I can do what I want".
But that's clearly not the case. I - we - have moral obligations to behave in some ways and not others, even though it is not possible for us to treat others in ways they do not deserve.
Why? Note, the issue is not 'whether' this is so, for it so clearly is. The question is 'why' it should be. — Bartricks
Also this is clearly begging the question. You’re asked to prove that your views do not lead to everything being permissible. It’s not clear at all that they don’t (that’s why you’re being asked). So yes, the question is in fact whether this is so, according to your views.
Now, we can both agree that not everything is permissible. But what’s being asked is whether or not you can consistently hold that with the rest of your beliefs. -
God and antinatalism
Your expertise? — Bartricks
Not only is that an argument from authority, but you’ve never actually proven you have any yourself. You first. I’d bet money you have none.
It is consistent with everything that happens here being just, that some acts are right and others wrong. — Bartricks
False. Definition of Just:
“based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.“
Didn’t think I’d have to teach you English.
You’re shifting goal posts. At first what was right was what our moral intuitions told us was right. Well, if someone thinks like you, they will come to the conclusion that everyone here is a criminal. And hurting criminals as much as they deserve (which will always be the case) is not wrong, according to our moral intuitions. So everything you do here IS permissible.
What you’ve “shown” (more so asserted), is that God expects more of you. He expects you to treat people as if they’re innocent. So what? Who cares about that? No relevance to the question. You’ve shifted goal posts and now what’s “right” or “permissible” is what God expects of you. But you haven’t proven that. You just asserted it.
You now introduce the possibility that even though our intuitions (at least moral intuitions) can tell us something, they could be wrong and the actually correct thing is different, and known to God. So then I ask, what makes you trust these intuitions, rational or otherwise?
The fact that doing X would bring about a just state of affairs, does not entail that it is right to do X. — Bartricks
Correct. But had you undergone the reflections, and discovered that X is a just state of affairs, then yes it does entail it. The only situation it doesn’t is when you intend to do something wrong, but it ends up bringing about a just state of affairs.
Let that be my problem. I'm an extremely fast typist. — Bartricks
Sure but let’s not pretend it’s about finger taps. You just use ad Homs because you can’t substantiate your arguments. So instead you attack everyone who critiques it so you don’t actually have to listen. And so that no one bothers to critique you so you can keep your contradictory views intact. -
God and antinatalismTyping it out would have taken fewer finger taps than preceding with a paragraph to insult then basically typing it out anyways....
-
God and antinatalismYes, everything that happens here is just. But that doesn't imply that all is permitted. — Bartricks
Which is dodging the question. What was being asked is not what’s permitted (whatever that means) or not but what’s wrong or right. You’ve shown that acting immorally is not what God expects of you. But so what? Doesn’t make it wrong. That’s my point. In your paradigm, nothing anyone ever did was wrong. Just some of it was closer to what God wanted and some was further. But that’s not the same things as being wrong ethically. You’ve completely dodged the critique.
If an act is just it’s not wrong. Even if it’s not what God would ideally hope you would do. “Hitler did not do anything unjust, he just refused to rehabilitate” is something that is true in your view.
then the standard arguments for antinatalism now apply — Bartricks
And they’re fallacious. But this is not the thread for that.
I am still waiting. — Sir2u
He made a thread about it but don’t bother. The “proof” was complete nonsense. -
What's your ontology?You said it's the same thing. — Manuel
Yea. And I’d still use the former. Since they’re the same thing anyways I don’t have to explain the neurological state that is anger when simply saying “angry” will do.
I think that while in principle you could stimulate the brain to do this, we know way too little about the brain. — Manuel
So your objection is more empirical and fundamental. I don’t know much about neurology so idk if it’s founded or not.
I never got an answer. What's your ontology? — Manuel
What exists? Why stuff of course! In other words I’m a monist. I think the only things that exist are physical though I hesitate to use the word because it’s basically lost all meaning. “Quantum wave states” have no position, speed, defined mass, color or smell but we still call them physical. -
God and antinatalismWhat about those who believe that God exists; that none of us have been created; that this world is a prison, and that everyone who comes here deserves to come here (and have arrived at this belief responsibly)? Let's first be clear how many people satisfy that set of criteria. Me. I think that's it. Just me. — Bartricks
Should be a red flag. But anyways.
You do not have to have any view about life's purpose for that to be wicked. — Bartricks
False. For one, one could justify such an act by noting that NOT bringing in those people also comes with risks. In other words, since you’re supposed to act as if people are innocent (even if they’re not), then you also recognize that not having a child can cause harm, and so both alternatives are risky, and a cost benefit analysis is needed. Or alternatively they could simply determine that the project of continuing the human race justifies their actions. Fully realizing they are imposing on others who may not be interested in the project.
No, I don't think so. First, consider that I think everything that happens here is just — Bartricks
Thus no matter what you do, it was just. That’s an inescapable conclusion. So the prisoners are never wrong in what they do. Although they may not be living up to God’s expectations of them, they’re never unjust. Despicable? Obnoxious? Maybe. But did they do anything wrong? No.
So what? — Bartricks
You’d be holding contradictory views. That antinatalism is true although a triple Omni God exists.
Antinatalism is not an absolutist position — Bartricks
Yes it is. Generally people refer to “hard antinatalism” when they say “antinatalism”. Otherwise everyone is an antinatalist. Because everyone thinks that procreation is wrong sometimes. Which is the same as thinking it’s wrong generally but with a lot of exceptions. There is no hard line here.
A convicted murderer who undertakes to kill other convicted murderers is not fit to be released back into the community. — Bartricks
Who cares about that. We’re asking if the act is wrong or not. That is what is being asked here. Not whether or not it is what God expects of you.
An omnipotent warden can expect all his prisoners to treat each other with cordiality as if they’re innocent and give them release if they rehabilitate successfully. But those of them that commit the most atrocious crimes to deserving people, aren’t doing anything wrong. They’re just refusing to rehabilitate. But not doing anything wrong. Because their victim deserved it. They (the crime committers) may not be released as a result, but that doesn’t mean they did anything wrong. -
What's your ontology?You'd eventually describe everything we do in neurophysiological language. — Manuel
No? Why would I do that?
When we speak of mind, we are simply stressing the mental aspects of physical reality. — Manuel
I could just do this as I have been.
But if this is what you think then why were you asking “how” neurons produce experiences? -
What's your ontology?For you there is an experience of “seeing a tree” as distinct from the physical state of the brain at the moment. For Isaac “seeing a tree” is precisely the physical state of the brain at the moment.
Personally, I don’t find that anything “breaks” when you say that mental states are physical states. Example: “She slapped him because she was angry”, “She slapped him because <insert causal chain leading to slap here>”. Same thing.
So I prefer Isaac’s view. It doesn’t have to deal with the problems of dualism. Such as: if “seeing a tree” is an experience independent from the physical state, how does it influence it and seem influenced by it? Same with “anger”. How did the emotion move the arm (I would simply say that the emotion is precisely the neural event that moved the arm)? I also prefer minimalist ontologies so that probably plays a role.
If you think that by studying the brain, we will understand not only seeing trees, which includes all of what I mentioned — Manuel
If someone understands everything there is about the physical state of someone seeing a tree but has never seen a tree themselves, does that person “understand seeing trees”. I ask because this caused a lot of confusion on another thread. There are 2 uses of the word understand here. The former means comprehension of facts. The latter means having an experience. The former is used for example in “You don’t understand calculus”. The latter is used in “You don’t understand pain”. -
God and antinatalismAgain with my example: I did wrong to Jeremy, yes? But Jeremy deserved what he got. — Bartricks
I think most people would say “you thought you did something wrong when you didn’t”. That is to say “had you had all the necessary information you would have known the act was fine”. That’s all I’m saying. Had the people undergone these reflections, they would know that having children is merely putting criminals in jail.
decide not to be presumptuous and set themselves up as a vigilante but instead decide humbly to take their licks — Bartricks
You haven’t shown that this is wrong in any way. As I said, it’s not being presumptuous, it’s just helping out without being asked. The only things that make vigilantism wrong in the real world is that it is often risky, and does more harm than good. But in this case there are no such worries. Everyone here and everyone you bring here is a sinner. You’re just helping out God (again, not that he needed help of course). A criminal that captures other criminals is BETTER not worse than one that doesn’t assuming he can’t make a mistake and capture an innocent (which we know is impossible here). And to go and capture criminals as a criminal is not to presume that the omnipotent warden is incapable, it’s just helping out.
Why wouldn't he? No harm is done. They, by procreating, make themselves deserving of another lifetime in the prison. Good - that's what they deserve - and further accommodation is provided for other criminals (two birds, one stone). — Bartricks
If “no harm is done” by procreating then what makes it wrong? And you can’t just say “it’s vigilantism” that’s insufficient as I’ve shown above. Helping without being asked is not wrong, even when your help is not needed.
Also according to your view, God would have no problem “providing accommodation” himself. How does that work? Do you wager that if everyone was convinced by your brilliant argument, and thus chose not to have kids anymore, that despite that the human race would not go extinct? We would now have people that materialize out of thin air instead of being born to be punished? -
God and antinatalismSo, as far as they are concerned, they made an ignorant innocent person join them in a world they knew was full of dangers. Wicked. — Bartricks
But for anyone that has done these reflections, they would soon find that everyone here and everyone they bring here is not innocent. So I’m confused as to why you’re an antinatalist then.
Most people THINK they’re doing something wrong but by your standard they’re actually not.
For God, being omnipotent, does not need anyone else's help providing accommodation — Bartricks
Well then why did he make it such that people CAN procreate in the first place? Him being omnipotent could’ve made it otherwise. Why is he giving us criminals the ability to bring in more people?
So it seems that the way he provides accommodation is precisely by allowing procreation (ethically speaking). And this seems to be the case since having kids appears to be fine at first glance. And also because people don’t just appear out of thin air. God seems to never “provide accommodation” directly. Two pieces of evidence which lead to the belief that having kids is fine, hell, is precisely what God wants you to do (since he doesn’t seem to want to materialize us criminals out of thin air, and instead made it so that we have the urge to bring in more criminals)
It is to set oneself up as a vigilante. — Bartricks
And what’s wrong with that. Sure God may not need your help in providing accommodation, but that does not make it wrong to provide it nonetheless. Again, it’s just putting criminals in jail. And as shown above it seems that that’s what God wants you to do. -
God and antinatalism
But it also stands to reason that God would not have allowed innocent creatures to live in ignorance in a dangerous world. — Bartricks
If this is true then this is false:
if you try and procreate you are actively trying to bring an innocent person into the prison to join you — Bartricks
You can't have both.
EITHER, an omnipotent omnibenevolent God exists and so everyone here, and everyone you bring here, must be a sinner (because God wouldn't have suffered innocent people exist here, your own words) in which case having children is fine (you're just putting criminals in jail). OR people here (or at least people you bring here) are innocent and God allows procreation in which case he is either not omnibenevolent/not omnipotent/not omniscient or a combination (if antinatalism is true, he either can’t stop people from having kids even though it’s wrong, can stop them but chooses not to, or doesn’t know that people are having kids). Or having kids is fine (if you want to keep the 3 omnis)
What is wrong with you people? — Bartricks
It's much more likely that something is wrong with you than that something is wrong with everyone. -
Arguments for having ChildrenTo continue improving the fate of those who remain after your death through projects that take longer than one generation to complete. — Isaac
-
Exploitation of Forcing Work on Othersyou actually just debate the topic and not make this a meta-argument about the topic. — schopenhauer1
You’re the one making a meta argument about the topic. Someone responds to you and you question their motives in responding instead of addressing the response. You did this to me and Isaac.
No you two specifically do the same thing — schopenhauer1
When did I say “You shouldn’t have said that stop being such a meanie”. I never questioned why you post until you questioned why I respond.
ANd like i said, you at least argue the fuckn case rather than making speeches about the me arguing the case in the first place. — schopenhauer1
I do. Though a second ago you said I didn’t, and that I did the same thing....
And in this scenario Isaac was arguing a case. He didn’t say you shouldn’t post. He said your premise basically begs the question.
But I've NEVER went to another thread just to say that they shouldn't write their thread, — schopenhauer1
But you’ve went to my comments saying I shouldn’t write them because I already wrote them before. But when Isaac does that targeting your OPs you complain. And he isn’t even doing that right now.
That you were looking for my premise (dignity, etc.) an explanation of that, not the conclusion. — schopenhauer1
Yea ok I get you now. -
Exploitation of Forcing Work on OthersWhy don't you just ignore my threads if you think the argument not worth your time? — schopenhauer1
Well at least for me: because it’s irritating seeing someone make (what I thought was) a flawed argument over and over again. Now I just think it’s begging the question.
I see a whole bunch of threads on here. I even see a professional philosopher, David Pearce. You can argue you heart's content at other people and things. — schopenhauer1
It’s also irritating to see someone repeatedly playing the victim when they post on a public forum and their post gets a response that shows the weakness of their position. You said the same thing to me too. Is this how you react with everyone who disagrees with you. “You didn’t have to say that stop being such a meanie!”
If you don’t want a particular person to respond, don’t post at all as there is a chance they will. Or if you post don’t be surprised that they do. It’s contradictory that you spend 3 paragraphs psychoanalyzing why your opponent responded to your thread but when Baden starts psychoanalyzing you you say something like “why not take it at face value”. Why don’t you take it at face value and assume Isaac is being a perfectly friendly commenter who happens to have a different view from you?
If you don’t want your motivations to be talked about, and would rather focus on the argument, don’t talk about the motivations of others and instead focus on their argument.
Speaking of ignoring arguments and focusing on psychoanalyzing opponents: Is the reason you always play the victim when someone disagrees with you repeatedly that you don’t want people seeing the disagreement and being driven away from AN? Are you a preacher?
Anyways, you are wrong here because khaled is looking for a conclusion with a premise. — schopenhauer1
What does this even mean? -
Exploitation of Forcing Work on Othersyou are not recognizing in my argument the distinction between starting a life (and challenges and problems that a person would face), and helping people out who are already dealing with the challenges — schopenhauer1
Because both can be the latter.
But by using people to such a degree, you are indeed overlooking that person's dignity as a PERSON. — schopenhauer1
So for you there are impositions that are simply “too much” and having children is one of them.
You could’ve just said that. -
Exploitation of Forcing Work on Othersyea me too. It if was actually necessary. But pay the guy. You can afford that.
-
Exploitation of Forcing Work on OthersThere is something wrong with this. — schopenhauer1
I disagree. Not in principle. Only contingently.
We don’t need the lifeguard to teach lifeguarding for the rest of his life because we have enough people that can swim.
where before you did not when it was just to wake him up to save the drowning child. — schopenhauer1
Why not? Because it was “just” to wake him up? I don’t see how one is ok and the other not on principle. They seem to just be contingent. Waking him up is fine because it’s a small imposition without which much greater suffering would befall someone. But forcing him to teach lifeguarding lessons is not because we don’t need him to. There is no shortage of lifeguards. And it’s a much larger imposition. -
Exploitation of Forcing Work on Othersthat’s a new one. Well it’s definitely not “clearly” wrong. Seeing as you’re literally the only person I’ve ever asked that suggested they are outside of political reasons (in the case of taxes)
-
Exploitation of Forcing Work on Othersyou didn’t answer though. Taxation? Schooling? Should we stop those? If they’re not wrong why not?
-
Exploitation of Forcing Work on OthersTo not wake the lifeguard would be to overlook the dignity of the drowning person. — schopenhauer1
Oh that counts? Right then to not have the child would be to overlook the dignity of the people they would have helped
Dignity here is something akin to recognizing people's suffering and wanting to help or prevent it if possible, but realizing that the conditions of life can't prevent it all for those already born. — schopenhauer1
Ah I see. So in the end you do only care about suffering inflicted.
Again, putting people into enslavement is not the answer to helping the enslaved, but abolishing the enslavement — schopenhauer1
When the latter is impossible (which it is) the second best thing is to reduce suffering as much as possible (or as you would put it, “respect the existent’s dignity”). Sometimes having a kid does that.
In other words: Hard AN doesn’t follow from your premises. -
Exploitation of Forcing Work on OthersI never bought into your totalizing method where this isn't a consideration, only the totalizing outcome of harm or good or whatever utilitarian thing you are claiming. — schopenhauer1
What was this then?
1.) If MY computation is right, no ONE suffers (cause no one is born, of course).
2.) If the procreator-sympathizers are right, SOMEONE suffers. — schopenhauer1
It's almost as if you only consider suffering inflicted...
Once placed in the position, then it would be not recognizing people's dignity by ignoring their humanity. — schopenhauer1
What does this mean? "Once people are born it's ok to force them to do things for the sake of other people"? I'm genuinely asking I don't understand the sentence at all.
The indignity happens when putting people into the condition in the first place. — schopenhauer1
And the indignity happens when you force someone to wake up to save a drowning person too. It also happens when people are forced to go to school. Or forced to pay taxes. Even by your "indignity" basis all these things end up wrong as far as I can tell. Until you define "indignity" more sharply. I assume it means forcing people to do things against their will. Idk what you mean by it. -
Exploitation of Forcing Work on OthersI'm leaning towards the enforcement of negative conditions on others being always unjust. — Tzeentch
Schooling? Taxing? Waking up a sleeping lifeguard to save a drowning guy?
I'd like to be persuaded otherwise, but it seems any attempt at justifying such behaviors goes down a slippery slope that leads to a justification for any and all behavior — Tzeentch
Not really. There are countless stopgaps you can implement. Like: Only force a negative condition if the forcing does less harm than not forcing. Is a good one. -
Exploitation of Forcing Work on OthersThe lifeguard and anyone else already existing is ALREADY in the inescapable game. It's too late to prevent their being forced into being in negative situations IN THE FIRST PLACE. — schopenhauer1
False. It’s not too late. You can simply let your friend sleep and let the guy drown. That would mean your friend is not forced into a negative situation. You force them into that particular negative situation. And I don’t see how them having had negative situations before is any justification for why it’s ok to force them but not ok in the case of having children.
Do you recognize different states of affairs and thus principles apply differently? — schopenhauer1
No because you haven’t pointed out a principle that applies differently to the different situations. But I do recognize the different states of affairs and how they’re different. You haven’t explained why the difference matters.
1.) If MY computation is right, no ONE suffers (cause no one is born, of course). — schopenhauer1
False. The people the child would have helped suffer. Unless you’re talking about extinction through AN. Which is never happening so is useless to talk about anyways. -
Do human beings possess free will?:roll:
Cheers. Hope you get help. You need to stop talking to your food, though I know it's hard to find anyone else that agrees with you.
if indeterminism is true events still have causes. — Bartricks
But don’t trace fully to the causes. That’s the point. That was your standard and it is met. -
Do human beings possess free will?It isn't a difficult point to grasp and it is obviously true. — Bartricks
It's very easy to grasp. And obviously false. Again:
If a bedridden paralyzed patient who can't move any muscle in his body intends to donate to charity, but since he can't move he doesn't, has he done something moral? Similarly if he decides to kill someone, but since he can't move he doesn't, has he done something immoral? — khaled
Answer these questions honestly. And you'll have your answer.
And all actions have a mental element for actions are the exclusive preserve of agents, and agents are minds and an action is caused by certain kinds of mental event. — Bartricks
Would be to assume epiphenomenalism is false. And I thought it shouldn't matter whether or not it is true for your position....
Why on earth would I be responsible for what my mind does if its activities are indeterministic? — Bartricks
Because it doesn't trace to external causes. That was YOUR standard. And it is met.
False. Indeterministic causation is still causation. When an event is undetermined, it is not uncaused. It was caused, just indeterministically. — Bartricks
But any given action you do indeterministically does NOT trace to external causes. You can take all the causes into account, and it wouldn't be enough to cause action A or action B. There is an additional element.
But just to be clear: to you "traces to external causes" is the case even if indeterminism is the case? Sure. Even though no combination of the external causes can ever decide the result, apparently the result still traces to external causes. Gotcha.
Literally no idea what your point is. On what grounds do you reject premise 1? Present a deductively valid argument that has the negation of 1 as a conclusion. — Bartricks
Why is the burden of proof on me? The premise doesn't appear to be true. It's nonsense. And regardless, I've explained why it is false. Because indeterminism means (precisely) that actions do not trace fully to external causes. Which was your standard.
1- If indeterminism is the case, actions do not trace fully to external causes (if A then B)
2- If actions do not trace fully to external causes you are morally responsible (if B then C)
3- If indeterminism is the case, you are morally responsible (if A then C)
4- If your mind is the product of external causes, and indeterminism is the case, you are still morally responsible (If A and D, A -> C: then C)
5- It is not the case that If your mind is the product of external events that you had no hand in, then you are not morally responsible (proof by counterexample 4)
I just explained the point to my plate of fish fingers and I think one of them got it. — Bartricks
I mean.... I could see why you would have no one to talk to but talking to your food? You should consider therapy.
And no wonder only fish fingers seem to get you. Since you are of similar intelligence.
Some people just can't be helped it seems. -
Do human beings possess free will?kill Sarah your intention does not need to have resulted in Sarah's death, it is sufficient that you formed it. Obviously. — Bartricks
Obviously not. In that example, you still attempted to kill Sarah. If you hadn't attempted you did nothing wrong. Even if you had every intent to kill Sarah. As long as you don't act on the intention, you did nothing wrong. Because morality applies to actions.
Not a great friend of Consistency are you? — Bartricks
You're just not a great friend of understanding. You sound so self assured I feel sorry for you because you always end up looking like an idiot when shown the obvious thing you've been missing.
This is a derailing move as whether epiphenomenalism is plausible or not is demonstrably irrelevant to the free will question. — Bartricks
Not derailing. Just a separate question I was curious about. Though I understand it may be difficult for you to keep two separate questions in mind at the same time.
It applies to more than actions, and some mental activities are actions and is essential to all actions. So, you know, well done. — Bartricks
You know that I mean. Physical actions. I just don't understand what you gain by trying to make such a stupid very easily dismissible "objection".
1. If my mind is the product of external events that I had no hand in, then I am not morally responsible for anything about my mind or anything it is caused to do. (If A, then B) — Bartricks
This premise is just false. You don't know if your mind is material or immaterial at this junction correct? If your mind WAS immaterial, then it could be the product of external events you had no hand in, but still not be caused to do anything as a result (be undetermined).
Even if your mind was material, it could be that indeterminism is the case, in which case, again, you would be responsible for what it does, regardless of whether or not it was created by factors outside your control.
Remember your original argument for this? It was "In order to be morally responsible my actions must not fully trace to external causes".
Remember: I agree with Strawson over 1. I agree that to be morally responsible, your decisions must not trace to external causes — Bartricks
Well if your mind is undetermined (either by it being immaterial or by it being material and indeterminism being the case), then it could be a product of external events, yet still your decisions would not all trace to external causes.
So it is simply false that if your mind is the product of external events that that leads to your decisions tracing to external causes which leads to you not being morally responsible. Your mind can be the product of external events, without your decisions tracing to external causes if indeterminism is the case. So your mind can be caused by external factors while you retain moral responsibility.
This is in addition to the fact that I don't even accept the premise to begin with. Even IF your actions traced to external events you're still responsible for them depending on the events. -
Do human beings possess free will?I am morally responsible for my decisions regardless of whether they are effective in the world. — Bartricks
Sure. I would assume that being morally responsible would require you and your decisions to be able to.... you know.... do something. Guess not though.
What in blue blazes are you on about? — Bartricks
Whether or not the thesis is bizarre and motivated. You would have known that had you simply read what I quoted.
Because whether I am morally responsible or not for my intentions and decisions and other mental activities has nothing to do with whether they are causally effective in the world. — Bartricks
I think you're on your own there.
If a bedridden paralyzed patient who can't move any muscle in his body intends to donate to charity, but since he can't move he doesn't, has he done something moral? Similarly if he decides to kill someone, but since he can't move he doesn't, has he done something immoral?
Morality applies to actions. Not mental activities.
then I am not morally responsible for being the mind that I am and so consequently I would not be morally responsible for any of my mental activity. — Bartricks
Disagree. But that's not something I want to get into again.
And I'm curious how you think your mind originated. Not due to your birth or anything physical like that of course. So what? It was just sort of always there? An immortal soul of some sort? -
Do human beings possess free will?So, just to be clear, your view is that if I attempt to kill Sarah, I am not morally responsible for forming that intention if it does not result in Sarah's death? — Bartricks
No that’s not my view. That you interpreted it that way is too bonkers for words.
If you decide to kill Sarah, your attempt to kill Sarah following that decision was not actually caused by that decision. So you did not even cause the physical attempt of killing Sarah. So how can you be blamed for something you didn’t cause?
it is being claimed that material events cause mental events, but mental events can't cause material events. That's perverse. If there are material events, then we have good evidence that they cause mental events and vice versa. I just intended to raise my arm and it raised. There. — Bartricks
Even in an epiphenomenalist view, your decision to raise the arm will always be preceded by an intention to raise the arm. The claim is that the physical raising of the arm causes both the intention and the raising. In a pair.
Your intention to raise the arm and it rising isn’t evidence that the intention was causal. In the same way that a color change preceding a pH change in titration is not evidence that the color has anything to do with pH (it doesn’t). And the fact that the intention always precedes the action is consistent with epiphenomenalism.
Oh, and physical stuff does not appear to be self-determining. When a physical thing does something we look for a cause of its doing it. — Bartricks
Correct. And at no point have we looked at the cause of a physical thing and did NOT find that it was purely and completely caused by other physical things. That’s very strong evidence that physical stuff is self determining. -
Do human beings possess free will?For instance, if I form the intention to do X and try to do X, and X occurs but entirely coincidentally and not as a product of my trying to do X, I remain fully morally responsible for trying to do X. Yes? — Bartricks
I would think no. Because the intention to do X didn’t affect whether or not you tried or succeeded at doing X, physically.
I would think to be morally responsible in that scenario you’d need some social definition of moral responsibility. “You are responsible when you do something you weren’t coerced into doing” or something like that.
If so, then I think that bizarre and unmotivated thesis — Bartricks
Why bizarre? It comes from splitting up the world into mental and physical stuff. Then noticing that the physical stuff seems to be self determining with no need of mental stuff. -
Do human beings possess free will?What do you understand epiphenomenalism to be? — Bartricks
Physical stuff causing minds which do nothing -
Do human beings possess free will?Right. But these “decisions” are mental things. Are they supposed to have physical effects?
Or in other words, do you think free will exists if epiphenomenalism is true? -
Do human beings possess free will?Is it needed for an immaterial mind to be able to cause physical changes for said mind to be morally responsible?
-
Do human beings possess free will?there is broad agreement on the basic concept, despite disagreement reigning over exactly what it takes for our wills to answer to that concept. — Bartricks
I would say “there is broad agreement on the basic concept BECAUSE of disagreement reigning over what exactly it takes for our wills to answer to that concept”
Everyone is defining it so that it exists. But that doesn’t mean that it exists in all its definitions. That’s my point. For example:
I think free will in a dualistic framework is under doubt for example. As it requires “minds” causing physical changes. Yet we have extremely strong evidence that the only thing that can cause physical changes is physical stuff. That’s what the laws of conservation mean. — khaled
So a definition of free will that involves an immaterial mind being able to cause material changes means free will doesn’t exist. Or that it needs redefining. -
Do human beings possess free will?The reason of literally billions of people tells them that their wills are free and that they are responsible for the decisions they make. That is staggeringly good evidence. — Bartricks
I doubt this. I think it’s mostly because if you ask anyone on the street “do you think you have free will” they will answer in the affirmative confusing free will with a general sense of feeling free.
The problem is that free will is defined differently. By some definitions we definitely have it (a general sense of freedom). By others, there is some doubt. That’s why I don’t think there is strong support for the statement “we have free will” at all. There is definitely strong support for “we feel free”, but as for “we have free will” that depends on the definition.
I think free will in a dualistic framework is under doubt for example. As it requires “minds” causing physical changes. Yet we have extremely strong evidence that the only thing that can cause physical changes is physical stuff. That’s what the laws of conservation mean.
Similarly, some people still insist that free will must require indeterminism. To them, free will is under doubt.
“Free will” isn’t this monolithic concept, so the fact that most people say they have it doesn’t really mean anything specific -
Self Evidencemakes sense. Weird to me that you give any and all different appearances the same weight. Is the earth round? Well to a flat earther you have the burden of proof. Not that I know of a good way to separate these appearances out as worthy or unworthy of requiring a proof.
-
Self EvidenceI wouldn't get into a conversation with such a person. — Bartricks
You wouldn’t get into a conversation with someone to whom something appears differently from you? You read the parenthesis right? No you do that all the time.
So, who is the burden of proof on? Whose appearances (does it appear to you!) are the “standard” appearances that don’t need proving? -
Self EvidenceThat is, the reason of most people represents it to be true. — Bartricks
Right now assuming you get into a conversation with someone to whom non-contradiction (or anything that seems the case to you) doesn’t appear to be the case. Is the burden of proof on them or on you?
They would say it’s on you (since you are contradicting their appearances) and you would say it’s on them (since they are contradicting your appearances)
Now what?
khaled
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2024 The Philosophy Forum