I think I might be able to attempt a work around somehow ... might not fit into your criteria but will be fun.

Currently in the process of writing an essay on Liberty so this kinda thing is in my field of vision.

I am curious about what you would say to people who choose to have less choices. Basically they purposefully shirk responsibility and prefer not to choose.

Do we enforce a protection of choices against the will of such people? If so how can you justify this as it seems contradictory to the claims made for freedom consequentialism.

How far does paternalism factor in here if we are assuming rational and able people who are well informed and educated? I understand that it would likely enforce loss of freedom if it was judged such an action would reduce net Freedom?

This is intentionally quite a low bar to set for understanding, and means that people need not be well-informed in order to be free. They only need to understand what choices they are making and what it means to make those choices, such that they are able to apply their rationality to them. — Dan

This is a bit of a stretch considering people need a pretty high degree of understanding to contemplate possible consequences. This makes the whole scheme of Freedom Consequentialism ( as you frame it here) as somewhat elitist.

Regarding Satisficing Consequentialism I think this has better grounding when we define the 'minimal' as a kind of buffer zone rather than as an actual definitive line ... obviously this does not really help you as this is the very problem you posed that you wish to find a solution to!

If it is unsolvable then a cautious approach would make the most sense and then we find ourselves trying to resolve by Occam which side we should cut off or not. The qualitative aspect is really tricky so I do not see any simple work around that would outright counter the demandingness objection.

For these reasons I think a fresh approach may be warranted.

Interesting stuff :)

What if someone proves that it cannot be solved?

There is a phenomenon referred to as Christianity.

Are you saying anything else other than this? I cannot see that you are.

I think it is reasonable to say that a great number of us could give more. I see no reason for feeling guilty about going to the cinema or whatever though.

His argument has good weight to it as we all know the 'out of sight, out of mind' factor is big for all humans.

I honestly think it makes more sense for us to attend to what troubles are happening locally because, in terms of practicality, we are way more likely to contribute where we can immediately see and deal with certain social problems (plus people LIKE to actively help others rather than passively give money).

Ideally, if people have a decent income they should see what they can do and budget for it if they wish. Encouraging people to try once and see how they feel is likely more proactive than appealing to guilt (no matter how slight the appeal to guilt is).

The feel good factor is good enough reason contribute and there is no need to tie people in knots of guilt about what they do or do not do. Far better to merely appeal to people's better nature and ask them to 'give it go' and see if they feel any emotional benefits from such actions.

I see universals as meaning only ONE kind of thing. There are different types of 'walking' but not different types of 'the number one'.

If you cannot ask "what kind?" it is a universal.

Is justification the same as reason, apology, exculpation, defense, plea, rationale, rationalization, pretext, excuse - or something else? — Vera Mont

I would describe it as picture painting. The reasons for doing so vary depending the criteria. Justification can be a statement, a reply or a discussion with yourself. Each is quite different and serves different purposes.

When justifying your own actions or statements, according to what factors do you formulate your argument? — Vera Mont

Who I am talking to, what I want to say and how I may be wrong.

On what grounds do you decide whether a justification is appropriate and valid? — Vera Mont

Cynicism. This is true for my own justifications and others.

The simple truth is humans lie to themselves probably more than they lie to others. Watching how others justify themselves can help us understand some ways in which we fool ourselves.

Examples from any area of experience would be helpful. — Vera Mont

I have no reason to justify myself to you ;)

Some good points and interesting perspective there. Made me think.

I guess I am particularly curious about the Purpose (teleological) and Value (axiological) aspects involved when applying the "Experience Machine" to this question.

Note: let us stick to plain English rather than throwing around jargon though for now (much like with various nuances of Determinism).

Nozick tried to show that raw 'pleasures' are not necessarily what humans are pursuing. He pointed at the belief in the reality of the experience as being a factor that outweighs a pursuit of 'pleasure'.

Extracting this idea and applying to what is 'better' to believe, for the problem I have posed, shift the focus of the argumentation. By this I mean that we decide what is 'better' so how we Value the different positions matters.

Assuming Non-determinism (in any degree) can we provide evidence to state that belief in non-determinism trumps belief in determinism (as outlined in OP). I think we can.

The dynamic between living a so-called good life and living a life adhering to reality seem to be entwined. Reality seems to expose itself as the Purpose we carry for living; or rather, exposing reality is the Purpose for living.

Future is certainly tied up within this. Many people's access to 'pleasure' is generally in the immediate now, in temporal isolation, and in sensation. The Purpose is something more substantial as it is reality seeking.

The pleasure is ephemeral and perhaps an immediate reactionary guide; focus on the visceral experience. The Purpose both concrete and expansive in a temporal incompletion - we are always seeking reality through the real rather than abstractly measuring it in terms of 'pleasure'.

Note: I am trying to be concise here so as not to muddle the line of thinking.

Now, if we view Purpose as both reality led and reality leading - instead of goal driven - believing in no temporal Purpose (Determinism) clearly defeats Purpose as a led and leading aspect of human life. For non-determinism we then have the task of what that means as a Purpose led and leading being and to what extent our strain and stresses of responsibility factor in or not, then provide the evidence for this (if possible).

As an example of the ideas above (in case it is difficult to follow): I had a gut feeling that I should apply the thought experiment of the 'experience machine' to determinism vs non-determinism. The gut feeling is merely 'pleasure' directed, but the underlying mechanism of all this is Purpose. This reveals that a 'better' belief is the belief that drives Purpose, therefore believing in having purpose is certainly better than not believing in Purpose.

The only remaining question then is whether or not there is an optimal degree of belief in non-determinism and whether or not an argument for belief in determinism can be realised within these bounds?

I think it is far more likely it would lead to no decisions at all (which is a decision). We could also then argue that a non-deterministic belief would lead to procrastination and no decision making too though.

I think I outlined fairly well why there is no serious point in talking about Determinism as True in the sense I framed it. If it is false it might still be 'better' to believe in compared to believing in Non-determinism.

The entire point of this thread is to explore this. On the surface it may appear that it is 'better' to believe in Non-determinism. The question is can you provide good arguments for this belief and strongman the Determinism position too?

Nice information but irrelevant to the problem posed. Call it fatalism if you wish. I simply tried to outline what I was saying for this scenario as simply as I could (no need to get into the nuances of jargon).

The question now is not about what is true because we have no current way of unraveling this question in any simple manner. The question posed here is what is better to believe. — I like sushi

Few ask this. In short, believe whatever makes you do the more correct thing. If your beliefs in this matter don't significantly influence your day to day decisions, then the beliefs don't particularly matter. If fear of the wrath of the FSM makes you a better person, by all means make that part of your beliefs. — noAxioms

Yeah, I have not seen many ask this question. They just get tied up arguing about something they have no certainty about. Some prefer X and other mock X for thinking they can prefer X. The argument there is dead in the water.

I believe this problem is a kind of side door into the whole Determinism debate without really caring what is or is not correct.

I can only know that the future is out of my hands, but I can’t say it is set.

All I know is that my present state is not the result of me being free from forces that always precede my present state, and free enough to insert my own choice into the chain and tide of forces that placed chocolate ice cream in my mouth.

But those forces could be random. They could be some other free agent, operating me like a puppet at their free will - who knows? But I need not conclude that my future is set; only that my present was constructed by other than my choices. And that my future is not mine to set by my “choices”.

Maybe this is the same result, but I think it makes it more scientific if a question, and less dramatic with words like “fate”. — Fire Ologist

Irrelevant. Except for part in bold. We do not know so let's not waste our time speculating and see if we can say more about how one belief may or may not be 'better' than the other.

The rest of your post is you arguing with yourself and moving beyond the question posed in the OP. I am REALLY not interested in anything other than the question I asked and its possible ramifications.

Clearly determinism for humans is a moot point if true. The question is really about the belief in either if determinism (as outlined in the OP) is false and non-determinism is true.

@Moliere I am going to get Being and Nothingness printed out this coming week hopefully. Not sure when I can have a serious read of it though because I am really enjoying tackling Hegel atm.

Sartre is cruel with himself and thereby cruel to others as well, because it's justified and consistent I suppose. — Moliere

He seems to say that others see as cruel he simply views as brutally honest. I like the optimism in his take on existentialism and think there was some quite negative attitudes to what was overall a positive outlook on the human condition.

If you have the time and the inclination I recommend reading this:

Existentialism and Humanism

Whether you agree with him or not I believe attempting to understand is useful - for taking the good and critiquing the bad.

In the Q & A, and elsewhere, there are points where I either do not fully understand what he is saying, or he is tripping over himself a bit. Need to look closer after the weekend when I have more time.

Going to be reading Sartre and Hegel in tandem. Trying to think of a good third to read alongside them. I think Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling would be a nice contrast.

it's just I think Sartre is starting on the metaphysics side rather than the epistemology side. — Moliere

They are the same side ;) I think you meant ontological rather than epistemic though?

I have some opinions about this that are not too relevant here. Either way, there is a problem entangled here (which is why I am annoyed with Heidegger tbh). That is a WHOLE other thread so let's not go there on this thread :)

Trying my best to limit the range of discussion in any thread I create from now on.

being-in-itself/being-for-itself — Moliere

It appears Sartre changed the manner in which he applied these terms over time. I have found definitions that state being-in-itself means with 'essence' and elsewhere without (depending on the type of being-in-itself). This is likely to do with what @JuanZu points at above in reference to the 'Other'?

You cannot self-deceive yourself that you are acting in good faith, because that implies that you know what it is to act in good faith. — JuanZu

Huh? That is precisely my point? I am confused by what you are trying to express here. The very fact that you can deceive yourself into thinking you are living authentically is precisely what I am talking about.

You can deceive yourself into thinking you can know. Therefore you can deceive yourself about your own 'good faith' (authenticity).

If Sartre merely meant authenticity as an unreachable absolute target to aim for, it still means we are able to deceive ourselves into thinking we are moving closer to this ideal or further away from it.

Do you see what I mean?

The paradox is actually different. It is that when we pretend to be determined by our circumstances, social roles, etc., we are already making use of our freedom precisely in order to pretend. As in the case of the waiter who pretends to be a simple waiter, but the very act of pretending makes it clear that he is not a simple waiter. — JuanZu

The 'pretending' here is something more complex. I will think on this and see how it applies to what I am getting at. Thanks :)

Heidegger's tradition of phenomenology maybe. Not Husserl's though, and that is why they parted ways (as well as other reasons of course).

Anyway, later ...

So to act in bad faith is to speak dishonesty. — JuanZu

Incorrect. It is self-deception. One cannot always be aware they are acting in 'bad faith'. This misunderstanding might highlight the problem ?

Someone can deceive themselves into thinking they are acting in good faith when they are not - as is commonly done by everyone. We can be 'oppressing' other individuals under the staunch belief that we are acting in good faith rather than 'bad faith'.

It makes perfect sense to be in prone to self-deception that results in believing we are living 'authentically' when we are not.

This is the paradox of the claim of dealing with 'bad faith'. If we cannot truly distinguish between what is or is not an act of 'bad faith' clearly this is highly problematic.

I disagree with this. The idea of human nature is a central one to my way of thinking about people. Based on reading philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science plus my own experience in life, I see that we are deeply human at a biological, genetic, and neurological level. I say that so you know why I am resistant to any denial of its existence. — T Clark

Those were Sartre's words btw. Forgot to tag.

Will explain later. Time to go to work now :)

It also strikes me as arrogant. We are who we are, but we are also what we are. Sartre's radical freedom feels like Nietzsche's ubermensch. You can take that with a grain of salt, since I have read very little of either man's work. — T Clark

He was undoubtedly influenced quite strongly by both N and H.

My question was more or less an EVEN IF approach to the whole issue of 'essence'.

Whether we agree or not we can still follow the reasoning and find the paradoxical problem of knowing how to distinguish between a victim of bad faith or someone in bad faith. Clearly to play the victim is bad faith. I am not sure he ever addresses this issue other than to say something along the lines of 'be true to yourself' - as echoes.

Nominalism is nominalism. You will have to be more specific with your question maybe?

From my pov, nominalism is nothing other than the Cartesian doctrine that matter is extension. — Gregory

That is ONE way of using nominalism I guess?

The literal meaning of the term is how we name/nominate items of thought/experience as X. What use abstract concepts are, how universal terms work and how these terms relate to reality are all what nominalism focuses on.

A nominal perspective is a pretty interesting one to take when thinking about stuff.

This might help to better outline his distinction :)

In case anyone is confused by what he meant by no nature/essence:

"Furthermore, although it is impossible to find in each and every man a universal essence that can be called human nature, there is nevertheless a human universality of condition. It is not by chance that the thinkers of today are so much more ready to speak of the condition than of the nature of man. By his condition they understand, with more or less clarity, all the limitations which a priori define man’s fundamental situation in the universe."

Human beings have an essence, a nature. To ignore this is simply to be ruled by something that lies outside one's grasp of reality, to be determined by ignorance. Our actions do not spring from the aether uncaused, nor do we. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, what exactly did you mean here then if you know he never suggested we 'spring from the aether' as you put it?

Our actions do not spring from the aether uncaused, nor do we. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Note: I do not believe this is what Sartre was saying. I do not believe he denounces obvious physiological facts or differences (such as sex or the human body in general).

If you have read Sartre and can explain why in depth I would love to hear it.

An in depth analysis of your understanding of his argumentation against essentialist ideas in the manner he was talking about them would be great?

The question remains how/if the paradoxical position Sartre gives can be overcome? If not that then merely fortified in some way that is productive?

My mistake 20-21

Try this (page 20-21 in particular):

Existentialism and Humanism

Is it even relevant for people to know or say of others that they are in bad-faith? As you point out, it is an 'internal' concept. — Pantagruel

Yes, because if someone is accusing others of oppression they may be doing so in bad faith. This would basically mean that someone sees something they believe is 'oppressive' (which is not) because it suits their worldview to deceive themselves to avoid anguish and discomfort. Given that Sartre points out that the bad faith of people (systemic or otherwise) leads to oppression.

It is an internal concept that is created and propagated by the individual. It passes judgement but can certainly err.

No, not exactly, because Sartre is saying there is no true self (no 'essence'). We create ourselves.

Babies are not blank slates. — T Clark

We do not have to agree with his propositions to explore the contradictions. He is basically appealing to a form of self-determination (termed as Radical Freedom). He admits that people are born in certain circumstances and situations that make avoiding bad faith more or less as of a struggle.

I think the object is still being-for-itself. An object is already quite meaningful: even rocks are more meaningful than being-in-itself. The Being-in-itself/Being-for-itself distinction is the most basic dualism of Sartre's which is offered as a means for resolving various paradoxes, but like all basic distinctions in a philosophy, it's hard to define it explicitly. — Moliere

He famously stated that "existence precedes essence". As I understand this the very premise Sartre works from is that of atheism. The paperknife is an object created for a purpose, where the purpose is its 'essence'. Humans have no 'essence' because they were not created.

The term object can be attached to a being-for-itself in the realisation of an individual being among other individuals. He terms this as the 'Other'.

Because you said you had a belief, I asked you to explain it and then you said why should I.

If you cannot explain your belief, no problem. I will move on swiftly. Time for me to go and drink someone else's orange juice.

Bye.

I'm not going to be providing any papers, you didn't ask me to prove any specific claim so anything I give you will seem random and you cant convince people by throwing random papers at them — Ourora Aureis

I asked this: How are aesthetic and moral values the same? You made the claim. If you are not willing to argue your case then I am puzzled why you are here at all.

I was merely intrigued by what you meant. Sounds interesting.

First I have to state my belief that all values are equivalent, there is no difference between a moral or aesthetic value. From the dislike of murder to the love of orange juice, these concern the same type of preference known as a value. — Ourora Aureis

I am curious what backing there is to this belief.

You will need to back up your reasoning then.

there is no difference between a moral or aesthetic value. — Ourora Aureis

How so? Explain why people believe there is a difference. By all means site any papers relevant in the cognitive neurosciences I am fairly well versed in that particular area.

This is somewhat false. Many antinatalists would prefer there were restrictions on procreation on ethical grounds. Otherwise, your description is good. — AmadeusD

Explain what kind of "restrictions" you are talking about here. You might be correct as a great many of people with a shallow understanding of the principles involved would encourage this quite strongly (people who watched a youtube video and decided it sounded about right). Anyone with a more thorough understanding in favour of enforcing such ideas by law are extreme radicals and should probably be treated with contempt by everyone else (they will be by me for sure).

This sounds very much like nonsense the way you put it.

I am guessing it is not nonsense though just badly expressed. Maybe explaining how your view does or doesn't cross over into solipsism? That might help others to understand.

Also, consider the very problem of measuring 'suffering' against 'pleasure' even if you did not buy into the whole asymmetry argument.

In terms of nonidentity I have already shown how we can have care and concerns for future generations, so this is involved in the argumentation too.

That is it. If you understand this you understand the AN position and the problems it poses (regardless of its 'rightness' or 'wrongness').

Take out Suffering, and the whole AN argument collapses. — Fire Ologist

So does life. There is no life without suffering so you would effectively be achieving nothing by making a claim that suffering is absent.

The 'suffering' is part of the argument involved with the presumed Right to bring life into the world going unquestioned. It is a very subtle part of the AN position but nevertheless essential to it - just like the Right to have an abortion for some women.

There is the claim to a Right to act in a certain manner (create/negate) potential life, and the issue of 'suffering' too (which is inevitable for any living creature).

To repeat, you have absolutely no need to agree with the AN argument only to understand the inner workings of it. The issue of nonidentity might not be much of an issue for you either, but it is for many. You just have to accept this and say "okay, but no thanks," and take what you can away from the discussion.

Just like someone believing in a god you have to listen to them, throw in some questions and then see if you can make some kind of sense of it all as best you can. Ultimately there is no conclusive answer as we cannot measure such things as yet.

There is a point in my mind where having an abortion is the right way to go and in my mind there is also the point where AN is the way to go. I have a far less murky picture of former than the latter.

What right do I have to make someone else late for work by driving too slow? What right do I have to cause a car accident? None. So if preventing suffering in some possible scenario is the highest ethical ideal, then I shouldn’t leave the house. — Fire Ologist

Nothing to do with AN.

I can have a baby and “do my best” not to cause any harm to that baby. So if meeely having the baby sets up the conditions where I didn’t prevent suffering, so does leaving the house and involving anyone else in my actions. — Fire Ologist

I answered by saying if 'suffering' was not an issue there is still the issue of questioning the intrinsic right of of having a child (the nonidentity problem).

Do not get me wrong I understand the kind of comparison you are making, but it is not an AN position to argue about things such as the right to punch someone in the face, be late for an appointment or such items surrounding the usual ethical concerns of existing humans. It is about looking at the ethical issues surrounding the reasons, and 'human rights' involved in procreation.

The 'suffering' part is A factor not THE defining factor of the AN position. This is why I have stated multiple times that both need to be considered when viewing the AN position.

How am I any less immoral by having a baby or leaving the house? If I leave, I am likely to cause some suffering to some potential person, just like if I take steps to procreate I am likely to cause some suffering, therefore yo prevent suffering and be an ethical person, I shouldn’t leave the house or procreate. — Fire Ologist

I believe such a person would do their best not to cause more harm either by leaving or not leaving their house. Once we exist it cannot be undone.

Again, the point of focus would be the nonidentity and what right you have to bring someone into the world in the first place.

You may as well ask something like why not wipe out the entire human race over night BUT that is not what AN is saying. They are concerned with the Rights of potential people and our justification for viewing having children as a human right in and of itself (without considering the rights of a human that never asked to exist in the first place).

Being born into an idealistic world still begs the question of why we do it and whether we really should. I imagine everyone has a number of reasons for having children and an even greater number of people never even really think about it at all.

A stochastic experience is needed to possess an iota of valuation. The coin is the two-sided thing you are battling with here. Values and principles are quite likely two-sides of the same coin?

No one has explained how it is logical for an AN person to say “thou shalt not procreate” but, after a person breaks that rule and gets pregnant, how they can also say “it is permissible to get an abortion.” That would mean, it is wrong to create a newly conceived fetus, because that causes suffering, but once you create one, you can still kill it. Where is the internal logic there? — Fire Ologist

This is precisely the kind of problem looked at in the issue of nonidentity. I do not know of any good argument as to when an abortion should or should not happen - but that is a separate but interesting comparison to consider when untangling the differences in such positions.

I am not going to put words in their mouth only give an honest reply to your point.

So if life only had a little bit of suffering in it, for everyone, the AN argument would fail? That’s not what Schop is saying. And it opens the whole AN argument up to attacks regarding the value of suffering. — Fire Ologist

It would still not address the issue of nonidentity and your 'Right' to bring someone into the world who may or may not suffer to some larger or smaller degree.

This is because the valuation attached to existence put forward by the AN is that of 'asymmetry'. The absence of 'suffering' is GOOD while the absence of 'pleasure' is NOT BAD (rather than GOOD). It is a basic aggregation aligned with the unpredictability of how a human's life will be. This is why an AN may say 'Why gamble?' because to them it is a little like this scenario:

1) You do not care about money AT ALL.
2) You are given money and then have to gamble with it.
3) Two possible outcomes:

A) You GAIN more money.
OR
B) You LOSE the money.

All you then have to do is replace MONEY with 'Pain' and then 'Pleasure' to see how there is an imbalance. Not having either to begin with is more satisfactory than gambling.

If you could guarantee that every lived life would be basically full of 'pleasure' to an optimal level for everyone then I cannot see how an AN could argue against such a scenario. If there is LITERALLY no scenario they or you can present that is for procreation then they are stuck.

On the flip side can you imagine certain extreme scenarios where you would look more favorably on the AN position?