Atheism, Slavery, And The Moral High Ground...

[Stoic]

Well I don't see logically why we have any more moral agency than the wolf pack. We are all just doing what we are programmed to...

That's because you have your own strange definition of "moral agency" which seems to require LFW.

But the processes that programmed you don't care about or aim for truth, conceptual ideals don't enter in. So no, you don't believe a thing because it is true. It may be true, but that is a haphazard corollary.

If I believe something because of the evidence for it, and the evidence for it exists because it is true, then in effect I believe it because it's true.

For example, the round earth determines what the evidence will be, and the evidence determines what I believe. It's not perfectly reliable, or there wouldn't be people who believe in a flat earth. But if cause and effect isn't determining my beliefs, how likely is it that they match reality?

But again, all your wants are determined - so no control exists...

I think you have a strange definition of "control", also.

A pilot has control of an airplane though the control surfaces on the wing and tail. If you replace the pilot with a computer, it's fair to say that the computer has control of the airplane, even if the computer is completely determined.

Yet even your "reasons" or what you consider good evidence or not, are also determined. Turtles all the way down.

Yes, fortunately.

If your wants are determined the above is a distinction without a difference... It is hard for me to believe that you would find a declaration of love that was determined by the forces of nature to be meaningful...

If those forces of nature include my nature and the woman's nature, it's more meaningful, not less.

[Tassman]

Well I don't see logically why we have any more moral agency than the wolf pack. We are all just doing what we are programmed to...




But the processes that programmed you don't care about or aim for truth, conceptual ideals don't enter in. So no, you don't believe a thing because it is true. It may be true, but that is a haphazard corollary.




But again, all your wants are determined - so no control exists...




Yet even your "reasons" or what you consider good evidence or not, are also determined. Turtles all the way down.



If your wants are determined the above is a distinction without a difference... It is hard for me to believe that you would find a declaration of love that was determined by the forces of nature to be meaningful...

You persist in presenting a false dichotomy between Libertarian Free Will, which cannot exist because it does not take into account how subconscious deep memories influence our decision-making processes. And Hard Determinism, which erroneously reduces us to the level of programmed robots…which we are obviously not.

All of us occupy the middle ground where we do exercise choices, but they are constrained to a greater or lesser degree by external or internal factors. In short, what is known as ‘Compatibilism’ whereby free will and determinism are mutually compatible.

[seer]

That's because you have your own strange definition of "moral agency" which seems to require LFW.

Strange? How do you rationally justify praise or blame to a determined act? That makes no sense to me.

If I believe something because of the evidence for it, and the evidence for it exists because it is true, then in effect I believe it because it's true.

For example, the round earth determines what the evidence will be, and the evidence determines what I believe. It's not perfectly reliable, or there wouldn't be people who believe in a flat earth. But if cause and effect isn't determining my beliefs, how likely is it that they match reality?

But you have no control over what you consider evidence or not, whether it is good evidence or not. How do conceptual beliefs change the mix since they are equally determined? So again, no you don't believe a thing because it is true - you believe a thing because you were determined to. There is nothing else - it is turtles all the way down...

I think you have a strange definition of "control", also.

A pilot has control of an airplane though the control surfaces on the wing and tail. If you replace the pilot with a computer, it's fair to say that the computer has control of the airplane, even if the computer is completely determined.

Yet you agree that you can not change your wants, desires or responses. And we certainly would not ascribe moral agency to the flight computer.

Yes, fortunately.

At bottom you are trusting non-rational forces to cause you to be a truth seeker even though these forces care nothing about truth nor do they aim for truisms...

If those forces of nature include my nature and the woman's nature, it's more meaningful, not less.

In reality it is these non-caring forces causing the woman to spit out the proclamation. You might as well program a computer to say I love you over and over again...

[Stoic]

Strange? How do you rationally justify praise or blame to a determined act? That makes no sense to me.

There is no requirement that praise or blame be rationally justified. They may be purely emotional statements.

However, they can be rationally justified if you look at them as an attempt to influence future actions.

But you have no control over what you consider evidence or not, whether it is good evidence or not. How do conceptual beliefs change the mix since they are equally determined? So again, no you don't believe a thing because it is true - you believe a thing because you were determined to. There is nothing else - it is turtles all the way down...

You have not provided any reason to think that believing something because it is true and believing something because I was determined to are mutually exclusive.

Yet you agree that you can not change your wants, desires or responses. And we certainly would not ascribe moral agency to the flight computer.

And yet a computer can exert control even though it is causally determined.

At bottom you are trusting non-rational forces to cause you to be a truth seeker even though these forces care nothing about truth nor do they aim for truisms...

No, I am simply recognizing that non-rational forces caused me to be a truth seeker.

In reality it is these non-caring forces causing the woman to spit out the proclamation. You might as well program a computer to say I love you over and over again...

As I've already explained, I see a big difference between a woman saying that she loves me because of who I am, and because of the chemistry between us, and a woman saying she loves me because of a drug she was given, even if both proclamations were ultimately causally determined.

If you still don't, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[seer]

There is no requirement that praise or blame be rationally justified. They may be purely emotional statements.

However, they can be rationally justified if you look at them as an attempt to influence future actions.

If there is no rational basis for blame or praise then what does it mean to be a moral agent?

You have not provided any reason to think that believing something because it is true and believing something because I was determined to are mutually exclusive.

Then you would have to conclude that the forces of nature do in fact seek or aim at truth. But that is exactly what they don't do.

No, I am simply recognizing that non-rational forces caused me to be a truth seeker.

How does that work since they neither care about or aim for truth. They are deaf dumb and blind to truisms. If the forces of nature that determined you have no affinity for truth or truth seeking then where does it come from?

[Stoic]

If there is no rational basis for blame or praise

I didn't say that there is no rational basis for blame or praise, just that one isn't necessary.

then what does it mean to be a moral agent?

It means that one understands right and wrong, and that it makes sense to hold him accountable for his actions.

Then you would have to conclude that the forces of nature do in fact seek or aim at truth. But that is exactly what they don't do.

I don't see a reason to conclude that the individual forces of nature seek or aim at truth.

How does that work since they neither care about or aim for truth. They are deaf dumb and blind to truisms. If the forces of nature that determined you have no affinity for truth or truth seeking then where does it come from?

Think of it as an emergent property.

[Tassman]

If there is no rational basis for blame or praise then what does it mean to be a moral agent?

“Blame or praise” with regard to community behavior is bestowed by the society that sets the rules. And a well socialized person will follow societal expectations.

Then you would have to conclude that the forces of nature do in fact seek or aim at truth. But that is exactly what they don't do.

There is NO moral “truth” outside of communal values. The origin of morality is biology and natural selection, NOT "revealed" absolute morality embedded in a deity.

How does that work since they neither care about or aim for truth. They are deaf dumb and blind to truisms. If the forces of nature that determined you have no affinity for truth or truth seeking then where does it come from?

It works because the abiding instinct of ALL life-forms is survival. In our instance morality is a product of evolution as it lends itself to our survival as a social species. It is not fixed; it evolves and varies to a degree from culture to culture over time.

[Machinist]

It is not fixed; it evolves and varies to a degree from culture to culture over time.

Right. I think that was the whole point of the thread. That is, if read it correctly. It's all relative.

[seer]

I didn't say that there is no rational basis for blame or praise, just that one isn't necessary.

How do you logically blame a determined act?

It means that one understands right and wrong, and that it makes sense to hold him accountable for his actions.

Understanding makes no difference if the act is determined. How could it, there is no freedom to do otherwise in this picture.

I don't see a reason to conclude that the individual forces of nature seek or aim at truth.

Right they don't.

Think of it as an emergent property.

Yes I know the argument, your link references human consciousness - is that a physical property or a non-physical property? And this whole emergent argument begs the question a bit; all there is, is nature, therefore nature must have did this. Here is an interesting piece by Sam Harris you might like: https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness/

[seer]

Right. I think that was the whole point of the thread. That is, if read it correctly. It's all relative.

Apart from the law of God that would be the case. Which also means that no moral relativist has any rational standing to counter to any behavior they find objectionable.

[Stoic]

How do you logically blame a determined act?

To quote myself, praise and blame "can be rationally justified if you look at them as an attempt to influence future actions."

In the case of a moral agent, part of what determines an act is knowledge about whether one might be held accountable for that act. So it's important to hold people responsible for determined acts in order to help determine those acts.

That you refuse to recognize this, much less deal with it, is one of the reasons I suspect we're not going to make any further progress discussing this subject.

Understanding makes no difference if the act is determined. How could it, there is no freedom to do otherwise in this picture.

Understanding makes all the difference, because if one does not understand that one will be held accountable, then it makes no sense to hold one accountable, because it will have no influence on determining the act.

This is why it would make no sense to blame a lion for what it does. The prospect of blame has no impact on the lion's actions.

Right they don't.

And from the link I gave you,

"Emergent properties" refer to those properties that are entirely unexpected and include emergent phenomena in materials and emergent behavior in living creatures. They arise from the collaborative functioning of a system, but do not belong to any one part of that system. In other words, emergent properties are properties of a group of items, whether insects, atoms or buildings, that you would not find in any of the individual items.

It's not unusual for a group of items to have properties that none of the individual items have. So the fact that a group of fundamental particles and forces has properties that those particles and forces do not have, is not all that strange, even if it is unpredictable.

Yes I know the argument, your link references human consciousness - is that a physical property or a non-physical property? And this whole emergent argument begs the question a bit; all there is, is nature, therefore nature must have did this. Here is an interesting piece by Sam Harris you might like: https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness/

Consciousness is a different subject, and a huge one. Suffice it to say that I think it will eventually be explained in terms of physical processes, though we have certainly not done that yet, and I'll grant that I could be wrong.

[Tassman]

Right. I think that was the whole point of the thread. That is, if read it correctly. It's all relative.

Morality is relative to the needs of the community and has demonstrably evolved and varied from culture to culture over time – including Christian cultures. If you want to argue that morality is fixed and absolute and embodied within a deity and revealed in scripture you need to show WHEN in history, if ever, we have seen it in action. Or is it an idealized fictional concept not sustained by reality? I argue that it is the latter.

[Machinist]

Morality is relative to the needs of the community and has demonstrably evolved and varied from culture to culture over time – including Christian cultures. If you want to argue that morality is fixed and absolute and embodied within a deity and revealed in scripture you need to show WHEN in history, if ever, we have seen it in action. Or is it an idealized fictional concept not sustained by reality? I argue that it is the latter.

Regarding the whole "you can't claim something is absolutely moral unless you compare it to an absolute moral law" thing:

I believe it can only be demonstrated syllogistically.

And I believe that is the significance of the moral argument. You will never see it in action. Asking for examples misses the point. The point only exists conceptually, within the rules of logic that we all assume when we communicate. It is not fictional.

[seer]

To quote myself, praise and blame "can be rationally justified if you look at them as an attempt to influence future actions."

In the case of a moral agent, part of what determines an act is knowledge about whether one might be held accountable for that act. So it's important to hold people responsible for determined acts in order to help determine those acts.

That you refuse to recognize this, much less deal with it, is one of the reasons I suspect we're not going to make any further progress discussing this subject.

Yet as I said that does not make us moral agents any more than when an alpha wolf effects the future actions of other group members. But what you seem to be saying is that we can change determined acts - which means that they were not really determined in the first place. If it is turtles all the way down then really you are dealing with a vast and complex domino effect. but no real agency. The cue ball hits another ball, which moves another ball, then another, etc...Nothing moral in that picture.

Understanding makes all the difference, because if one does not understand that one will be held accountable, then it makes no sense to hold one accountable, because it will have no influence on determining the act.

Isn't your understanding or lack of also determined?

This is why it would make no sense to blame a lion for what it does. The prospect of blame has no impact on the lion's actions.

So we can change determined acts? Then how are they determined?

"Emergent properties" refer to those properties that are entirely unexpected and include emergent phenomena in materials and emergent behavior in living creatures. They arise from the collaborative functioning of a system, but do not belong to any one part of that system. In other words, emergent properties are properties of a group of items, whether insects, atoms or buildings, that you would not find in any of the individual items.[/BOX]

It's not unusual for a group of items to have properties that none of the individual items have. So the fact that a group of fundamental particles and forces has properties that those particles and forces do not have, is not all that strange, even if it is unpredictable.


Consciousness is a different subject, and a huge one. Suffice it to say that I think it will eventually be explained in terms of physical processes, though we have certainly not done that yet, and I'll grant that I could be wrong.

That is why I brought up human consciousness awhile back - that is the seat of our rationality. And that can not be shown to be an emergent property, and there is good reason to think it is not. See the Harris' link, or Chalmers' Hard problem of consciousness. And BTW - is consciousness a physical property?

Harris:

Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. Nevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle.

[Stoic]

Yet as I said that does not make us moral agents any more than when an alpha wolf effects the future actions of other group members. But what you seem to be saying is that we can change determined acts - which means that they were not really determined in the first place. If it is turtles all the way down then really you are dealing with a vast and complex domino effect. but no real agency. The cue ball hits another ball, which moves another ball, then another, etc...Nothing moral in that picture.

Over and over again, you imply that what I do can have no affect on your actions if your actions are determined, completely ignoring the possibility that what I do may be part of what determines your actions.

Along the same lines, there can be logical reasons for doing something, even if what you do is determined, given that what you do may be (at least partly) determined by those logical reasons.

Isn't your understanding or lack of also determined?

Yeah, so?

So we can change determined acts? Then how are they determined?

If Jupiter can affect Saturn's orbit, does that mean that Saturn's orbit is not determined?

That is why I brought up human consciousness awhile back - that is the seat of our rationality. And that can not be shown to be an emergent property, and there is good reason to think it is not. See the Harris' link, or Chalmers' Hard problem of consciousness. And BTW - is consciousness a physical property?

Personally, I think consciousness is what happens when faculties that were originally directed outward, to help us deal with the external world, are then focused inward. I'll grant it is a hard problem, but I don't think it's unsolvable.

And I think it's too early to conclude that consciousness is not a physical property.