|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Can morality have meaning in a materialist universe?
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
This is a bright shiny new thread on which we can discuss the question that got started over on the Natural Law thread:
Can morality have meaning in a materialist universe?
I think starting by defining terms might be a good place to begin, since I think we might be using the same words to mean different things.
I promise not to bring Lovecraft in this time. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I find it difficult. To me, morality requires having a choice. At least part of it is about being able to choose between different options, and being responsible for that choice.
Of course, there are different ideas of what a 'materialist universe' means. For example, everything could be preditermined by the laws of physics, or there might some quantum randomness involved. But to me, neither of these give rise to having a choice.
If our actions were determined by the laws of physics then we didn't really have a choice, and can't be held responsible for them. And if our actions are the result of quantum randomness, then it wasn't really our choice either.
So, my answer would be no.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Empathy? could it be based on that? Appreciating the position in all respects of others and moderating one's behaviour and conduct based on that?
I have wondered whether, in a religious or nonreligious environment or society, if it is not the threat of aggressive or violent response to one's behaviour that keeps most people behaving within bounds, and also the rewards for doing so. Thus, if you misbehave, the police, your parents, your boss may discipline you, and conversely, if you behave and conform, you get dessert, a raise, encouragement and love of others.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I disagree with Le Roc. When you look around, I think it is clear that we DO have the ability to make choices and hence morality DOES have a meaning.
Whilst it may certainly be true our choices are influenced by our genetic make-up and our enculturation and so on, I don't see that such influences completely negate our ability to choose between different courses of actions.
I also think that real morality is not dependent upon any religion. By that, I mean that you can't have different and opposing moralities coming from different religions, with each being equally valid. If morality is to have meaning, I think it has to be 'universal' - applicable across all faiths and cultures (and even applicable for alien races on other planets!).
[ 19. August 2014, 17:40: Message edited by: Oscar the Grouch ]
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Oscar the Grouch: When you look around, I think it is clear that we DO have the ability to make choices and hence morality DOES have a meaning.
Exactly. This is why I don't believe we live in a materialist universe.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
If you mean any form of strictly deterministic universe, then morality is meaningless, because everything is determined.
But that includes retributive morality as well - if there is no morality attached to killing someone, there is also no morality attached to executing them. There is no free choice, so there is no personal responsibility for our actions.
However the reality is that, at a quantum level, the universe is not deterministic. While this doesn't directly apply at the cellular level (see my user name), a lack of a deterministic universe at any level does imply that our actions are decisions that we make, using our free will, our choices.
If we actually make non-deterministic decisions then a)morality is valid, because it applies to freely made decisions and b) the universe is not materialistic/deterministic whatever you want to say.
However, the question of whether we make free-will decisions is such a difficult and complex one. The working of the mind in terms of decisions making is hugely complex, and very little understood. There is evidence that we make simple, reflex decisions that are then post-hoc rationalised. The reflex decisions are amoral - there is no moral framework involved in making them. The post-hoc rationalisation is itself based very much on our experiences, our knowledge and situation, and so, some would argue, are deterministic as well.
Whatever, however the decisions are made, we should all take responsibility for our actions. That is not necessarily a moral issue, but a social framework issue. That might be all we can argue for.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
There's a fascinating sound track on one of the albums by The Unthanks. It is called 'The Happiness or Otherwise of Society', spoken by someone called Jack Elliot:
quote:
"I found that I just couldn't believe in the Bible any more. I brought my children up without religion. Four children - never one's been in any trouble. Morally, they're second to none. Moral teachings have nothing to do with religion at all. Morals are social in their origin, I've always found. I used to teach my children this: if you hurt society, you're hurting yourself, for the simple reason that you're a member of society. And that's the only way to teach children. Teach them: if they want to do a bad thing, let them do it, but don't kid themselves it's a good thing. Make them face up to it - they're part of society, and whatever they do, it must have some bearing on the happiness or otherwise of society."
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Schroedinger's cat: a lack of a deterministic universe at any level does imply that our actions are decisions that we make, using our free will, our choices.
No, it doesn't imply that. What quantum randomness does, it just introduces a random variable over which we don't have control either. The wave function of an atom will either collapse into state A or into state B (as you well know, given our user name). This doesn't give us a choice.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
I agree with LeRoc that determinism and randomness are equally inimical to free will.
Still, we may believe we make free choices but be wrong. Perhaps our brains evaluate alternatives (possibly including options we aren't conscious of) and on the basis of that a choice is made by its chemistry and/or computational abilities. Is that free will?
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
que sais-je: Still, we may believe we make free choices but be wrong. Perhaps our brains evaluate alternatives (possibly including options we aren't conscious of) and on the basis of that a choice is made by its chemistry and/or computational abilities. Is that free will?
It depends on how the brain does that. In a materialistic universe, by its turn it would do so either by a deterministic process following the laws of physics, or by a stochastical process involving quantum randomness. There wouldn't be a choice here either.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Determinism I think isn't really a problem for morality. A determinist would distinguish between actions in which your character is one of the significant causes (regardless of the fact that your character is determined by something else) and actions where temporary aberrations caused by drugs or other outside influence are responsible.
As to whether a materialist can consistently hold some moral theory, I think it depends on the type of moral theory. One could hold that a society develops methods of resolving conflicts of interest and those methods of resolving conflicts are morality. Obviously methods of resolving conflicts of interest are weighted in favour of those with the greatest power to cause trouble for everyone else if their interests aren't met, but that's how it goes if it goes.
Could there be any more idealistic morality in a materialistic universe? I think yes, but not in one like ours. It could be simply obvious that the human good resides in compassion and sitting down in harmony with each other. But as it stands human nature is too complex to be able to say that a hierarchical society that wages warfare on its neighbours is simply unworkable. As such, it's simply too difficult to read morality off human nature without bringing in a metaphysical dimension to distinguish between aspects of human nature that are normatively positive (love and compassion) and aspects that are normatively negative (aggression and status seeking).
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Schroedinger's cat: a lack of a deterministic universe at any level does imply that our actions are decisions that we make, using our free will, our choices.
No, it doesn't imply that. What quantum randomness does, it just introduces a random variable over which we don't have control either. The wave function of an atom will either collapse into state A or into state B (as you well know, given our user name). This doesn't give us a choice.
I'm not sure morality can exist in a completely non-deterministic universe either, if "choice" is a necessary component of morality. Given that the outcome of any choice would be unknown and unknowable due to the non-deterministic nature of reality (two plus two equals five for the next sixty seconds!), choosing between a series of unknowable outcomes lacks a moral dimension.
Of course, a lot of people who object to the idea of a deterministic Universe are what could be called "faint-hearted non-determinists", who assume that most of the Universe is, in fact, deterministic, but that one small portion (that always happens to be exactly the right size for whatever their philosophical preference happens to be) is non-deterministic.
[ 19. August 2014, 20:47: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
There wouldn't be a choice here either.
Sorry, what I wrote was unclear. I agree with you. What I was trying to say was that believing you make free choices doesn't mean you actually do.
Your brain may have made the decision by deterministic means which your 'conscious self' was unaware of. Thinking you made a free choice may be rationalization made by your consciousness.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
que sais-je: What I was trying to say was that believing you make free choices doesn't mean you actually do.
I agree. If our free will is an illusion, then so is our morality.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Oscar the Grouch: When you look around, I think it is clear that we DO have the ability to make choices and hence morality DOES have a meaning.
Exactly. This is why I don't believe we live in a materialist universe.
We sometimes lack the language to say this, or at least I do. I want to say that it is "hard wired" into us, which then is a materialist metaphor. Even if I say it's built into the fabric of the universe, I'm using materialist language.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
If you don't know what deterministic decision you will make, it's "free" to you.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Lyda*Rose: If you don't know what deterministic decision you will make, it's "free" to you.
Yes, this would be the illusion of free will we were talking about. But it doesn't lead to morality. Only if we'd put "morality" between scare quotes too.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Crœsos: I'm not sure morality can exist in a completely non-deterministic universe either
I agree. A completely deterministic universe and a completely non-deterministics would be the two ends of the scale. Fortunately, I believe there is something in between too.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Crœsos: I'm not sure morality can exist in a completely non-deterministic universe either
I agree. A completely deterministic universe and a completely non-deterministics would be the two ends of the scale. Fortunately, I believe there is something in between too.
Where do you draw the line, and how? As near as I can tell the only methodology employed is philosophical convenience, which is never a very good way at arriving at accurate conclusions.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Schroedinger's cat: a lack of a deterministic universe at any level does imply that our actions are decisions that we make, using our free will, our choices.
No, it doesn't imply that. What quantum randomness does, it just introduces a random variable over which we don't have control either. The wave function of an atom will either collapse into state A or into state B (as you well know, given our user name). This doesn't give us a choice.
What I meant was, the universe is not deterministic, at some level. The quantum randomness means that there are events that are indeterminable. It raises a possibility for choice - not, as you say quite correctly, demonstrates the existence of choice.
If the universe has a degree of randomness, then some of that randomness - that lack of determinism - means that there is a mechanism for potential free will influences.
The problem is that, if at a level of brain activity everything is deterministic, then the choices we make are inevitable. Hugely complex, yes, but inevitable.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Schroedinger's cat: The quantum randomness means that there are events that are indeterminable. It raises a possibility for choice - not, as you say quite correctly, demonstrates the existence of choice.
Ok, I agree. It raises a possibility for choice. But in a materialistic universe, the existence of choice would still need to be shown.
quote:
no prophet: I want to say that it is "hard wired" into us, which then is a materialist metaphor. Even if I say it's built into the fabric of the universe, I'm using materialist language.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here.
quote:
Crœsos: Where do you draw the line, and how?
I said the two things are the opposite extremes of a scale. I'm not aware that there's a line that needs to be drawn here.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Crœsos: Where do you draw the line, and how?
I said the two things are the opposite extremes of a scale. I'm not aware that there's a line that needs to be drawn here.
You stated that "I believe there is something in between", implying that certain aspects of the Universe are deterministic and others are not (and, implicitly with your other assertions, that the non-deterministic portions of the Universe can be altered by the exertion of human will). So the obvious question is which bits of the Universe are materialistic/deterministic and which bits aren't?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Crœsos: So the obvious question is which bits of the Universe are materialistic/deterministic and which bits aren't?
Ah, I see. I personally believe there is something between the physical working of our brain and our thoughts that is not materialistic / deterministic.
[ 19. August 2014, 21:34: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
If you don't know what deterministic decision you will make, it's "free" to you.
Agreed. Which is pretty much how I see things. And for me I've been lucky and mostly enjoyed how things turned out. But that's only the first 64 years of course ....
Even with free choice you can never be sure that nature or other people's decisions won't nullify your choices. We may have free choice and it may be overrated.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
Ok, I agree. It raises a possibility for choice. But in a materialistic universe, the existence of choice would still need to be shown.
As it would in a non materialist, say, theistic universe. The thing about these conversations is that those on the theistic side of the fence just think that the concept of God given free will is all they need to wave about before laying into the materialist problems. The last time we talked about this on the ship I asked you in what sense is your concept of free will free. If it is contra causal, and your experience and environment and biology are not enough for it to be free, just what is it that makes the critical choices? You ended up saying something like, "It is something to do with God."
Well, that is just as problematic as anything on the materialist side of the divide.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Grokesx: As it would in a non materialist, say, theistic universe.
Of course.
quote:
Grokesx: Well, that is just as problematic as anything on the materialist side of the divide.
Exactly.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Crœsos: So the obvious question is which bits of the Universe are materialistic/deterministic and which bits aren't?
Ah, I see. I personally believe there is something between the physical working of our brain and our thoughts that is not materialistic / deterministic.
By "our" I'm guessing you mean human brains. What about similar brains in other species? Other primates? Other mammals? Other vertebrates? Are they also exempt from the usual laws of reality?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Crœsos: By "our" I'm guessing you mean human brains. What about similar brains in other species? Other primates? Other mammals? Other vertebrates? Are they also exempt from the usual laws of reality?
I'm not saying we're exempt from any laws. All the physical things inside our brain still follow the laws of physics. But I believe that these physical things don't completely determine our thoughts.
And yes, I believe that there is something non-deterministic in 'higher' animals too, although less than in us. It sort of fades out when you get to the bacteria.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
And yes, I believe that there is something non-deterministic in 'higher' animals too, although less than in us. It sort of fades out when you get to the bacteria.
And the internet.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Empathy? could it be based on that?
Perhaps the Priest and Levite acted on free will but the Samaritan "when he saw him, he had compassion". Compassion I would say is unwilled, you cannot intellectually decide to feel compassion. In which case would you say that what the Samaritan did, though in some sense praiseworthy, wasn't a moral act?
Assuming freewill the Samaritan could have chosen to ignore his emotional response, which seems to imply that free will, if morality is to exist, must always be able to override our emotions (even if sometimes it does not). Is that correct?
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
... that's the only way to teach children.
A similar argument applies to deeply ingrained beliefs and attitudes such as those absorbed in early childhood. If the belief became so ingrained that we instinctively did good would our acts cease to be 'moral' - though, as in the emotion example, still praiseworthy in some lesser sense?
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
lilBuddha: And the internet.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
If consciousness is real then yes it can and does. If consciousness is not real, who cares?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
Ok, I agree. It raises a possibility for choice. But in a materialistic universe, the existence of choice would still need to be shown.
As it would in a non materialist, say, theistic universe. The thing about these conversations is that those on the theistic side of the fence just think that the concept of God given free will is all they need to wave about before laying into the materialist problems. The last time we talked about this on the ship I asked you in what sense is your concept of free will free. If it is contra causal, and your experience and environment and biology are not enough for it to be free, just what is it that makes the critical choices? You ended up saying something like, "It is something to do with God."
Well, that is just as problematic as anything on the materialist side of the divide.
That's a fair charge. And Classical Christian thinking has a more complex answer than some imagine.
Firstly I do believe we have (some) free choice and that human decision-making is not based solely on physical processes. I struggle, however to justify that belief on any straight-forward evidential basis. As, has been observed above, just because I think I am making a free choice (to waffle on this wonderful website) doesn't mean I actually am. The workings of the brain and mind are immensely complex. (FWIW, I believe this because of my overall world-view which has it's own rational justification).
If we are just deterministic machines then of course there can be no morality. Whether a materialistic view of the world automatically equates to the view than we are merely machines with no free-choice is debatable. I do however think it tends that way - if consciousness is a product of brain chemistry then can we really be 'free-agents?'
Classic christian thinking is also quite complex. The bible often talks of us as being slaves to the sinful nature, so that whilst we do indeed make moralistic choices, they are not entirely free choices.
This is in-line with common experience. We know that all of us may be more restrained in some circumstances than others. The effects of alcohol and stress are two good examples of how our freedom to choose certain options is a variable thing. It is easy to not hit someone when I'm calm and happy - it is much, much more difficult if I am severely provoked. And I do not think that in a general context (rather than specifically where decision making has been studied) we well appreciate the factors that limit people's freedom in decision making. We are all conditioned and shaped for good or ill by our experiences.
So, yes I do believe we are free to make choices but that this freedom is not binary and lots of factors affect our freedom.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As near as I can tell the only methodology employed is philosophical convenience, which is never a very good way at arriving at accurate conclusions.
This sentence is self-refuting.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Are any Calvinists going to come along and comment? It's not only materialists who think that free will isn't required for morality.
(The problem with Calvinism as far as I can see is that it makes God causally responsible for human wrongdoing, but then only holds the human morally responsible.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Determinism seems to me one of those philosophical dead-ends, like the idea that oneself is a brain in a vat that is dreaming (or being fed fake experiences that constitute) all of life as we know it. Not possible to logically disprove, but it leads nowhere - doesn't help us make sense of our world or make better choices.
So there's no point in doubting that we choose.
Now if I play chess against my computer, I choose the moves I make. Does the fact that the computer is made up of atoms - that there's no ghost in the machine - mean that it isn't choosing moves in reply. ?
It's not the hardware that's made of atoms that is doing the choosing - it's the non-material software.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
If I really hurt you, that's really wrong.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If I really hurt you, that's really wrong.
I agree with Martin. We feel that some things are better for us and others worse. One can imagine different deterministic worlds in which which we would rather/rather not find ourselves. But if by 'real' right and wrong you mean having some objective standard beyond the individual experience of well being, I'd say no.
This doesn't prevent such a society being altruistic (in a similarly limited way) or having a 'moral code'.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
We feel that some things are better for us and others worse.
There's a certain ambiguity here. 'Feel' is a metaphor drawn from the sense of touch; it seems to me that the usual usage of 'I feel that' or 'we feel that' is to imply some tentative access to some objective state, or candidate objective state, that escapes rigourous empirical or logical demonstration. Merely subjective states are usually described without 'that': 'I feel happy'.
Likewise, 'better' and 'worse' imply some normative evaluation. You can make them work a certain distance up Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but after you've dealt with biological needs they begin to lose purchase if you can't ground their normative judgements in something. For that reason, classical economics avoids judgements about better and worse in favour of what people want and what people don't want.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's a certain ambiguity here. 'Feel' is a metaphor drawn from the sense of touch; it seems to me that the usual usage of 'I feel that' or 'we feel that' is to imply some tentative access to some objective state, or candidate objective state, that escapes rigourous empirical or logical demonstration. Merely subjective states are usually described without 'that': 'I feel happy'.
Likewise, 'better' and 'worse' imply some normative evaluation. You can make them work a certain distance up Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but after you've dealt with biological needs they begin to lose purchase if you can't ground their normative judgements in something. For that reason, classical economics avoids judgements about better and worse in favour of what people want and what people don't want.
I agree - but never the less I prefer walking in the country on a sunny day with beautiful views and a crisp breeze blowing to being kicked in the teeth.
I'm not claiming my normative judgements are comparable with yours or looking for some sort of universal ordering. Just that one can imagine deterministic worlds in which beings feel themselves to be happy and ones where they don't. Following on from Martin's post, worlds where I am frequently hurt are bad worlds to me. Referring back to ChastMastr's 'a real right and wrong' seems to mean more than that, perhaps an external system/rule/measure to which we logically must all be committed. I'm doubtful such a thing exists.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Me too, (doubt such a thing exists). One thing that puzzles me is, that if a 'real right and wrong' exist, then moral problems must have correct solutions. That's not my experience, but maybe it is some people's.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
I agree - but never the less I prefer walking in the country on a sunny day with beautiful views and a crisp breeze blowing to being kicked in the teeth.
I'm not claiming my normative judgements are comparable with yours or looking for some sort of universal ordering. Just that one can imagine deterministic worlds in which beings feel themselves to be happy and ones where they don't. Following on from Martin's post, worlds where I am frequently hurt are bad worlds to me. Referring back to ChastMastr's 'a real right and wrong' seems to mean more than that, perhaps an external system/rule/measure to which we logically must all be committed. I'm doubtful such a thing exists.
(I realise we went off on a tangent about determinism, but I don't think determinism is relevant to morality. There is a certain kind of moral accountability that only applies in non-deterministic worlds.)
Everyone (almost) would prefer a world in which everyone felt themselves to be happy to one in which everyone didn't. The problem is that everyone feeling themselves to be happy doesn't appear as far as we can tell to be one of the options here and now. (Also, would we prefer a world in which everyone was high on opiates all the time?) So the question is how to distribute.
So, there's not one clear-cut scheme of laws or rules. Does it follow that we think this means right and wrong are not external.
We have a child custody case. Does it therefore follow that the judge (morally) may say, there's no external right and wrong here to which we must be committed, so I'm going to award custody to the father on the basis that his name is earlier in the alphabet. It doesn't seem that way - we expect the judge to make the decision arbitrarily only after seriously investigating every aspect of the case and determining that there is really nothing to decide for the good of the child.
And likewise for moral dilemmas generally. If we're convinced that there's no such thing as the right answer to a moral dilemma, then we don't care whether we agonise over it or just toss a coin. And yet we do care: we think that if faced with a moral dilemma we ought to treat it as if the outcome matters, and lightly tossing a coin doesn't seem to pass muster.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Also, what about whether or not there can be a real right and wrong in a purely materialist universe?
I'm not setting out to nit-pick about the way you phrased the question. But it seems pretty clear that right and wrong only have meaning at the level of Mind, which is software. And Matter as such can only ever be hardware. Matter cannot choose right or wrong, only Mind can.
We observe a relationship between the two - software seems to require hardware on which to run.
By "a materialist universe" I take it that you mean one in which Mind can arise from an arrangement of Matter - that for example a sufficiently complex computer program with the power to amend its own code can be considered a Mind. If it turns out that what we are is minds (software) running on organic computers (brains), does that invalidate morality ? Or do we still have all the capacity for hope, fear, suffering, nobility etc that we always had, back when we didn't know what we were ? If in a hypothetical future we manage to prove somehow that this is what a human being is, does morality suddenly vanish in a puff of logic ?
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
In a materialist universe, there is no software. Any 'programs' are just the outworking of the physical things interacting with eachother according to physical laws, either in a determined way or according to a random process.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... if a 'real right and wrong' exist, then moral problems must have correct solutions.
Not sure. But if so there could, presumably, be more than one correct solution in some cases. So two people might come up with different answers, each actually optimal. Not sure what, if any, significance that has. If morality is about 'what is to be done' there may be multiple answers to a question.
Also, questions we may think are sensible moral ones may have no answer. A mathematical analogy: "What's the largest prime number?" is a valid mathematical question with no solution (except to say there isn't one).
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
And yet we do care: we think that if faced with a moral dilemma we ought to treat it as if the outcome matters, and lightly tossing a coin doesn't seem to pass muster.
I agree, but that isn't evidence that there is an objective solution to the problem. Your answer is in terms of human psychology: "we care". Wanting something to be the case, how ever strongly we feel, doesn't make it so, though it is evidence for a naturalistic moral sense.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
But if by 'real' right and wrong you mean having some objective standard beyond the individual experience of well being, I'd say no.
Ah. Yes, that is indeed what I mean.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Referring back to ChastMastr's 'a real right and wrong' seems to mean more than that, perhaps an external system/rule/measure to which we logically must all be committed. I'm doubtful such a thing exists.
I believe in such a thing, but then I am not a materialist.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Me too, (doubt such a thing exists). One thing that puzzles me is, that if a 'real right and wrong' exist, then moral problems must have correct solutions. That's not my experience, but maybe it is some people's.
Certainly correct responses, though our ability to perceive them may be quite imperfect.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm not setting out to nit-pick about the way you phrased the question. But it seems pretty clear that right and wrong only have meaning at the level of Mind, which is software.
Whether or not it is software, or something more than that, would be part of what's at issue, I believe.
quote:
And Matter as such can only ever be hardware. Matter cannot choose right or wrong, only Mind can.
I agree.
quote:
We observe a relationship between the two - software seems to require hardware on which to run.
That might also be a different matter.
quote:
By "a materialist universe" I take it that you mean one in which Mind can arise from an arrangement of Matter - that for example a sufficiently complex computer program with the power to amend its own code can be considered a Mind.
Actually, I'm not convinced that Mind can arise from nothing but an arrangement of Matter. That does appear to be the beliefs of many who believe in a materialist universe.
quote:
If it turns out that what we are is minds (software) running on organic computers (brains), does that invalidate morality ? Or do we still have all the capacity for hope, fear, suffering, nobility etc that we always had, back when we didn't know what we were ? If in a hypothetical future we manage to prove somehow that this is what a human being is, does morality suddenly vanish in a puff of logic ?
As something with meaning beyond just being an aspect of software, then, yes, I believe it does.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In a materialist universe, there is no software. Any 'programs' are just the outworking of the physical things interacting with eachother according to physical laws, either in a determined way or according to a random process.
Yes.
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Wanting something to be the case, how ever strongly we feel, doesn't make it so, though it is evidence for a naturalistic moral sense.
Agreed, though whether it is a sense that actually perceives something the way that our ability to do math allows us to perceive mathematical truths is perhaps a different issue.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
These issues have led David Chalmers, the philosopher who looks like a roadie, to a position of naturalistic dualism. That is, he argues that experience cannot be derived directly from material stuff; therefore, he argues, the universe contains both matter and consciousness.
This position is rather like that of Nagel, who recently published 'Mind and Comos', which has been slammed by many philosophers, as it also points to the anomaly of experience within a material universe.
But Nagel has been talking like this for ages - see his very famous article, 'What is it like to be a bat?', which argued that we cannot derive what it is like to be a bat from its material properties, (available online as a pdf).
However, both gentlemen are atheists, and so adhere to a naturalistic solution, but not a materialistic one.
Of course, nobody (except Dennett) has a clue as to how experience flows from the brain. And Dennett just seems to dissolve the problem by saying that consciousness is an illusion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NK1Yo6VbRoo
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
