Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Determinism And Moral Responsibility

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Determinism And Moral Responsibility

    If we really have no control over our thoughts and acts then what does that do to our sense of personal responsibility and how we look at the world? How could one ethically condemn an ISIS, or the murdering Communists and Nazis of the last century? They had no control over what they did. You could say that you don't prefer what they did, but to bring a moral charge against them would be akin to bringing a moral charge against the junk yard dog that bit you. It is meaningless, irrational.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  • #2
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    If we really have no control over our thoughts and acts then what does that do to our sense of personal responsibility and how we look at the world? How could one ethically condemn an ISIS, or the murdering Communists and Nazis of the last century? They had no control over what they did. You could say that you don't prefer what they did, but to bring a moral charge against them would be akin to bringing a moral charge against the junk yard dog that bit you. It is meaningless, irrational.
    If it appears that you have free will and freedom of action you also appear to be responsible for your actions. That is all that is required for others to appear to hold you to account.
    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
    “not all there” - you know who you are

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      If we really have no control over our thoughts and acts then what does that do to our sense of personal responsibility and how we look at the world? How could one ethically condemn an ISIS, or the murdering Communists and Nazis of the last century? They had no control over what they did. You could say that you don't prefer what they did, but to bring a moral charge against them would be akin to bringing a moral charge against the junk yard dog that bit you. It is meaningless, irrational.
      And here we go again.....

      We have the illusion of being in control of our thoughts and behaviour and act accordingly. And, being a social species, we've evolved with instincts that favour the maintenance of a cohesive community and these instincts form the basis of our moral code. Initially such behaviour was restricted to our own community or tribe but, being the intelligent species we are, we have extrapolated this behaviour to apply to ALL people. At least this is the ideal...there's still a way to go as indicted by the current war-torn state of the world.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
        If it appears that you have free will and freedom of action you also appear to be responsible for your actions. That is all that is required for others to appear to hold you to account.
        Except it is all false, and once you accept the model of determinism the only logical conclusion is that moral responsibility is nonsensical.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          And here we go again.....

          We have the illusion of being in control of our thoughts and behaviour and act accordingly. And, being a social species, we've evolved with instincts that favour the maintenance of a cohesive community and these instincts form the basis of our moral code. Initially such behaviour was restricted to our own community or tribe but, being the intelligent species we are, we have extrapolated this behaviour to apply to ALL people. At least this is the ideal...there's still a way to go as indicted by the current war-torn state of the world.
          Right, and here we go again - logically, if determinism is true then assigning moral blame or praise to any act is nonsensical. How could it be otherwise?
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Right, and here we go again - logically, if determinism is true then assigning moral blame or praise to any act is nonsensical. How could it be otherwise?
            Firstly, one accepts causal determinism because there’s no logically coherent alternative.

            Secondly, social creatures such as us have an evolved genetically determined predisposition which favours the maintenance of cohesive communities and from which we develop a moral code. We assign “moral blame” to those who break the rules because they damage the social fabric.

            And, unsurprisingly, when we invented our gods we gave them the same attributes and moral sense that we ourselves instinctively hold to be important.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Secondly, social creatures such as us have an evolved genetically determined predisposition which favours the maintenance of cohesive communities and from which we develop a moral code. We assign “moral blame” to those who break the rules because they damage the social fabric.
              It does not matter why we assign blame, it is still a legal fiction. We don't morally blame the junk yard dog for biting. We may put him down, but there is no moral blame. And we are just as determined as that dog.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                It does not matter why we assign blame, it is still a legal fiction.
                It matters that we maintain social cohesion so of course it matters why we assign blame to those who disrupt it. The only "fiction" is your unsupported assumption that moral rules come from a mythical entity of our own creation.

                We don't morally blame the junk yard dog for biting. We may put him down, but there is no moral blame. And we are just as determined as that dog.
                It's up to the other dogs in the pack to maintain doggy law and order within the pack, just as it’s up to human communities to maintain law and order within the tribe or society. Social creatures such as us have an evolved genetically determined predisposition that favours the maintenance of cohesive communities and from which we develop a moral code. If you think that there’s a logically coherent alternative to the causal determinism that resulted in evolved communities such as ours, then the onus is on you to explain what it is.

                Oops, ‘amen’ error re your previous post.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  It's up to the other dogs in the pack to maintain doggy law and order within the pack, just as it’s up to human communities to maintain law and order within the tribe or society. Social creatures such as us have an evolved genetically determined predisposition that favours the maintenance of cohesive communities and from which we develop a moral code. If you think that there’s a logically coherent alternative to the causal determinism that resulted in evolved communities such as ours, then the onus is on you to explain what it is.
                  That is not the point Tass, the point is not about what we do to maintain cohesive communities, religion can do that. It is about the idea of moral blame. You can no more assign moral blame to a man than you could for a dog - you may remove the dog or man from society because of their behavior, but neither are morally responsible for their action - both are equally determined, neither has any control over over their actions.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    That is not the point Tass, the point is not about what we do to maintain cohesive communities,
                    Of course it is. Maintaining social cohesion is the sole reason for enforcing a code of behavior, what do you think morality is all about…keeping an imaginary deity happy?

                    religion can do that.
                    Only if everyone conforms to the same sect of the same religion otherwise religion can be very divisive.

                    It is about the idea of moral blame. You can no more assign moral blame to a man than you could for a dog - you may remove the dog or man from society because of their behavior, but neither are morally responsible for their action - both are equally determined, neither has any control over over their actions.
                    We exercise control over our behaviour and are held responsible for it by the community. We’re predisposed by natural selection towards exhibiting altruism, mutual reciprocity and adherence to the rules of the group. It’s instinctive and we assign moral blame to those who do not adhere to the rules of the group.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      Of course it is. Maintaining social cohesion is the sole reason for enforcing a code of behavior, what do you think morality is all about…keeping an imaginary deity happy?
                      But you assume that most men can be good without believing in a deity, and you assume that there is something better for maintaining social cohesion than religion.


                      Only if everyone conforms to the same sect of the same religion otherwise religion can be very divisive.
                      No more divisive than politics or race or worldviews or economics.


                      We exercise control over our behaviour and are held responsible for it by the community. We’re predisposed by natural selection towards exhibiting altruism, mutual reciprocity and adherence to the rules of the group. It’s instinctive and we assign moral blame to those who do not adhere to the rules of the group.
                      What do you mean "we exercise control over our behavior?" That is exactly the point, we don't in your world - we are determined. Does the junk yard dog exercise control over his behavior?
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Right, and here we go again - logically, if determinism is true then assigning moral blame or praise to any act is nonsensical. How could it be otherwise?
                        It wouldn't necessarily be nonsensical, because praising those who do good encourages good behavior and punishing those who do bad discourages bad behavior. After all, that's what we want to do.
                        Blog: Atheism and the City

                        If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                          It wouldn't necessarily be nonsensical, because praising those who do good encourages good behavior and punishing those who do bad discourages bad behavior. After all, that's what we want to do.
                          I'm not speaking of trying to change behavior, I'm speaking of the very idea of personal moral responsibility. The idea that we are in fact responsible for our behavior - we are not, determinism undermines that. We may praise the junk yard dog and do what we can to change him - but he is not responsible for his bad behavior.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            But you assume that most men can be good without believing in a deity, and you assume that there is something better for maintaining social cohesion than religion.
                            And you assume most men can't and that there's nothing better for maintaining social cohesion than religion for no reason.


                            What do you mean "we exercise control over our behavior?" That is exactly the point, we don't in your world - we are determined. Does the junk yard dog exercise control over his behavior?
                            Just because we are determined doesn't mean that we don't exercise control over our behavior, that control over our behavior is all part of the determined process - and because no one can know the future, we can expect behavioral control in the future in people we know are capable of it. Dogs do exercise control, although to a lesser ability, because it's a totally different species.
                            Blog: Atheism and the City

                            If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              I'm not speaking of trying to change behavior, I'm speaking of the very idea of personal moral responsibility. The idea that we are in fact responsible for our behavior - we are not, determinism undermines that. We may praise the junk yard dog and do what we can to change him - but he is not responsible for his bad behavior.
                              Responsible means the ability to respond. We human beings in general can rationally respond to various stuff, and so this becomes an expectation of future behavior. That's the practical way of looking at responsibility in determinism. Personal moral responsibility just needs to be redefined in a non-LFW (which you know is incoherent anyway).
                              Blog: Atheism and the City

                              If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                              161 responses
                              514 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                              88 responses
                              354 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                              21 responses
                              133 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X