|
Reasoned Faith
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2007, 04:54:03 AM » |
|
The first being free will, and the second being reason.
You seem to be implying here that if there is no free-will we are excused from having to act ethically. I disagree. If their is no free will, one cannot act ethically because ones "choice" wouldn't then be a choice it would be just their nature. No free will no ethics, plain and simple. Just think of it like this; An apple falls from a tree due to many causes; the chief among them being the gravitational force. Now if you apply this same prospect to a human and assume that a human doesn't have free will, this means we are strictly controlled by A)our own nature determined by genetics and B)our experiences. Like the apple our choice to be unethical (to fall from the tree) wouldn't be a choice but a predetermined occurence. So if you think that human actions that are predetermined are unethical then you must also think that predetermined apples falling from the tree are unethical. I agree. I can find nothing to fault this argument. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Factinista
Full Member
Karma: +17/-35
Posts: 224
|
|
« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2007, 07:10:52 AM » |
|
If we have no free will of any kind then we must simply be objects who passivly observe the forces acting upon us. If we have NO will, free or not, then we are machines simply executing our predetermined actions. IF this is true then morality doesn't exist. There is no morality enherant in cars or computers so it would be the same with us. Fortunatly I don't think this is the case  I actually think that morality is the outgrowth of our evolutionary process. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Findeton
Jr. Member
Karma: +7/-14
Posts: 53
|
|
« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2007, 08:24:58 AM » |
|
The first being free will, and the second being reason.
You seem to be implying here that if there is no free-will we are excused from having to act ethically. I disagree. If their is no free will, one cannot act ethically because ones "choice" wouldn't then be a choice it would be just their nature. No free will no ethics, plain and simple. Just think of it like this; An apple falls from a tree due to many causes; the chief among them being the gravitational force. Now if you apply this same prospect to a human and assume that a human doesn't have free will, this means we are strictly controlled by A)our own nature determined by genetics and B)our experiences. Like the apple our choice to be unethical (to fall from the tree) wouldn't be a choice but a predetermined occurence. So if you think that human actions that are predetermined are unethical then you must also think that predetermined apples falling from the tree are unethical. I agree. I can find nothing to fault this argument. Maybe what you call free will is not what free will is. It depends on the definition of that. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 01, 2007, 09:59:07 AM by Findeton »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Callum
|
|
« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2007, 09:40:11 AM » |
|
Maybe what you call free will is not what is free will. It depends on the definition of that.
This is a regular topic here, Findeton. You will find that most die-hard supporters will refuse to attempt a definition. The usual weaseling-out is 'its self-evident'. Those who do attempt one find that their definition is circular via ethics and responsibility. Philosfear may like to take up your challenge for definitions by explaining what he means by 'ethics' and 'morality' too. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Technocrat
Full Member
Karma: +27/-149
Posts: 149
Soviet Technate
|
|
« Reply #19 on: November 01, 2007, 10:16:12 AM » |
|
Morality is just a social construction that is designed to make a prosperous society, minimize unnecessary harm for it to function. It's a survival tool for society and an outgrowth of evolution and our social-animal pack nature. Even if there were no concept of free will as it is typically understood, it wouldn't matter one bit for morality, since the rules of protecting society would still apply. Whether someone intends to harm others is irrelevant to whether or not he is and what needs to be done about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
In Soviet Tetris blocks drop you!
|
|
|
Findeton
Jr. Member
Karma: +7/-14
Posts: 53
|
|
« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2007, 10:17:25 AM » |
|
Maybe what you call free will is not what is free will. It depends on the definition of that.
This is a regular topic here, Findeton. You will find that most die-hard supporters will refuse to attempt a definition. The usual weaseling-out is 'its self-evident'. Those who do attempt one find that their definition is circular via ethics and responsibility. Philosfear may like to take up your challenge for definitions by explaining what he means by 'ethics' and 'morality' too. For any definition of free will, it's clear to me that we have to accept as premises that free will does indeed exist and we have it. We have to update the definition of free will as science advances so it fulfils thoses premises. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dormouse
|
|
« Reply #21 on: November 01, 2007, 11:41:42 AM » |
|
It is perfectly resaonable to assert that Christian morality comes from the Christian God, just like Muslim morality comes from the Muslim God.
I don't think anyone can rationally dispute this framework.
But morality certainly has many sources.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Findeton
Jr. Member
Karma: +7/-14
Posts: 53
|
|
« Reply #22 on: November 01, 2007, 12:16:51 PM » |
|
It is perfectly resaonable to assert that Christian morality comes from the Christian God, just like Muslim morality comes from the Muslim God.
I don't think anyone can rationally dispute this framework.
But morality certainly has many sources.
Yes, i accept that christian morality comes from the christian God,but as i'm atheist, i argue that the christian god is just something that mankind created, and therefore christian morality comes from mankind and not from any god.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #23 on: November 01, 2007, 03:15:26 PM » |
|
Yes, i accept that christian morality comes from the christian God,but as i'm atheist, i argue that the christian god is just something that mankind created, and therefore christian morality comes from mankind and not from any god. You can argue it all day long, but with just your presupposition it remains conjecture. As Callum indicates it should be self-evident to all of us that we are quite capable of freely choosing to get up and say flip the light switch on and off. furthermore I defy you to prove otherwise. This is not a problem of definition. It is more a problem of denial. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Findeton
Jr. Member
Karma: +7/-14
Posts: 53
|
|
« Reply #24 on: November 01, 2007, 04:02:46 PM » |
|
Yes, i accept that christian morality comes from the christian God,but as i'm atheist, i argue that the christian god is just something that mankind created, and therefore christian morality comes from mankind and not from any god. You can argue it all day long, but with just your presupposition it remains conjecture. As Callum indicates it should be self-evident to all of us that we are quite capable of freely choosing to get up and say flip the light switch on and off. furthermore I defy you to prove otherwise. This is not a problem of definition. It is more a problem of denial. I do not doubt that free will exists and we have it. I do not doubt that no god exists. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Callum
|
|
« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2007, 02:19:26 AM » |
|
Yes, i accept that christian morality comes from the christian God,but as i'm atheist, i argue that the christian god is just something that mankind created, and therefore christian morality comes from mankind and not from any god. You can argue it all day long, but with just your presupposition it remains conjecture. As Callum indicates it should be self-evident to all of us that we are quite capable of freely choosing to get up and say flip the light switch on and off. furthermore I defy you to prove otherwise. This is not a problem of definition. It is more a problem of denial. Firstly: the notions that 'christian moralirty comes from the christian god', 'muslim from muslim', etc rather points to the idea that it comes from something prior to all religions. Secondly: during my stay up here I've had the chance to read a lot of what my Dad had in his library and what he's written in his research and to get into IAP1 archive. I've in no way read all the stuff I want to: this isn't a simple subject. But I did come across him debating this very subject with you. Thats why I said about 'weaseling-out'. I think he more or less comprehensively showed your position to be very badly argued - well you didn't argue did you? Just banged the table like right now. "The earth is flat. It's self-evident. I defy you to prove otherwise. Evidence? Hearsay, not proven, conjecture, etc. Better explanation? No its not, it doesn't agree with what I want to believe.". I'll ask you something like the question he tried to answer. So just how do you see 'free will' operating within the way the mind works in general? I think your failure to respond adequately to that will be sufficient proof that your views in this are incoherent. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #26 on: November 02, 2007, 12:27:20 PM » |
|
The first being free will, and the second being reason.
You seem to be implying here that if there is no free-will we are excused from having to act ethically. I disagree. If their is no free will, one cannot act ethically because ones "choice" wouldn't then be a choice it would be just their nature. No free will no ethics, plain and simple. Just think of it like this; An apple falls from a tree due to many causes; the chief among them being the gravitational force. Now if you apply this same prospect to a human and assume that a human doesn't have free will, this means we are strictly controlled by A)our own nature determined by genetics and B)our experiences. Like the apple our choice to be unethical (to fall from the tree) wouldn't be a choice but a predetermined occurence. So if you think that human actions that are predetermined are unethical then you must also think that predetermined apples falling from the tree are unethical. It is a choice, but not in the sense you mean. Yes we are predetermined to make the choice but it is on the basis of our own genetics and experiences that we make them - that we act - either ethically or unethically. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
allpoints
Full Member
Karma: +24/-2
Posts: 214
I don't care if it rains or freezes...
|
|
« Reply #27 on: November 02, 2007, 02:11:17 PM » |
|
Yes, i accept that christian morality comes from the christian God,but as i'm atheist, i argue that the christian god is just something that mankind created, and therefore christian morality comes from mankind and not from any god. You can argue it all day long, but with just your presupposition it remains conjecture. As Callum indicates it should be self-evident to all of us that we are quite capable of freely choosing to get up and say flip the light switch on and off. furthermore I defy you to prove otherwise. This is not a problem of definition. It is more a problem of denial. Firstly: the notions that 'christian moralirty comes from the christian god', 'muslim from muslim', etc rather points to the idea that it comes from something prior to all religions. Secondly: during my stay up here I've had the chance to read a lot of what my Dad had in his library and what he's written in his research and to get into IAP1 archive. I've in no way read all the stuff I want to: this isn't a simple subject. But I did come across him debating this very subject with you. Thats why I said about 'weaseling-out'. I think he more or less comprehensively showed your position to be very badly argued - well you didn't argue did you? Just banged the table like right now. "The earth is flat. It's self-evident. I defy you to prove otherwise. Evidence? Hearsay, not proven, conjecture, etc. Better explanation? No its not, it doesn't agree with what I want to believe.". I'll ask you something like the question he tried to answer. So just how do you see 'free will' operating within the way the mind works in general? I think your failure to respond adequately to that will be sufficient proof that your views in this are incoherent. No one wanted to play ball with my postulate either. I had a great little exposition on the Euthyphro Dilemma, with a preemptive heading off of Aquinas' apologetics and Spinoza's rationalizations tied in with the naturalistic fallacy, but I guess everyone smelled that coming. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
slide
|
|
|
|
Callum
|
|
« Reply #28 on: November 02, 2007, 02:24:05 PM » |
|
Yes, i accept that christian morality comes from the christian God,but as i'm atheist, i argue that the christian god is just something that mankind created, and therefore christian morality comes from mankind and not from any god. You can argue it all day long, but with just your presupposition it remains conjecture. As Callum indicates it should be self-evident to all of us that we are quite capable of freely choosing to get up and say flip the light switch on and off. furthermore I defy you to prove otherwise. This is not a problem of definition. It is more a problem of denial. Firstly: the notions that 'christian moralirty comes from the christian god', 'muslim from muslim', etc rather points to the idea that it comes from something prior to all religions. Secondly: during my stay up here I've had the chance to read a lot of what my Dad had in his library and what he's written in his research and to get into IAP1 archive. I've in no way read all the stuff I want to: this isn't a simple subject. But I did come across him debating this very subject with you. Thats why I said about 'weaseling-out'. I think he more or less comprehensively showed your position to be very badly argued - well you didn't argue did you? Just banged the table like right now. "The earth is flat. It's self-evident. I defy you to prove otherwise. Evidence? Hearsay, not proven, conjecture, etc. Better explanation? No its not, it doesn't agree with what I want to believe.". I'll ask you something like the question he tried to answer. So just how do you see 'free will' operating within the way the mind works in general? I think your failure to respond adequately to that will be sufficient proof that your views in this are incoherent. No one wanted to play ball with my postulate either. I had a great little exposition on the Euthyphro Dilemma, with a preemptive heading off of Aquinas' apologetics and Spinoza's rationalizations tied in with the naturalistic fallacy, but I guess everyone smelled that coming. Yea I know. Much too wise our theist friends to either argue a case they know they will lose. Thus you get a dry "you give him too much credit" - why??? Or a simple side step or disregard. None of them will actually put forward a description of how morality is derived from god and promulgsted amongst the non-godly. Or an explanation of how they mind works such that 'free will' occurs in the account. So whats this about the Euthyphro? Sounds fascinating..... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
allpoints
Full Member
Karma: +24/-2
Posts: 214
I don't care if it rains or freezes...
|
|
« Reply #29 on: November 02, 2007, 03:12:40 PM » |
|
Yes, i accept that christian morality comes from the christian God,but as i'm atheist, i argue that the christian god is just something that mankind created, and therefore christian morality comes from mankind and not from any god. You can argue it all day long, but with just your presupposition it remains conjecture. As Callum indicates it should be self-evident to all of us that we are quite capable of freely choosing to get up and say flip the light switch on and off. furthermore I defy you to prove otherwise. This is not a problem of definition. It is more a problem of denial. Firstly: the notions that 'christian moralirty comes from the christian god', 'muslim from muslim', etc rather points to the idea that it comes from something prior to all religions. Secondly: during my stay up here I've had the chance to read a lot of what my Dad had in his library and what he's written in his research and to get into IAP1 archive. I've in no way read all the stuff I want to: this isn't a simple subject. But I did come across him debating this very subject with you. Thats why I said about 'weaseling-out'. I think he more or less comprehensively showed your position to be very badly argued - well you didn't argue did you? Just banged the table like right now. "The earth is flat. It's self-evident. I defy you to prove otherwise. Evidence? Hearsay, not proven, conjecture, etc. Better explanation? No its not, it doesn't agree with what I want to believe.". I'll ask you something like the question he tried to answer. So just how do you see 'free will' operating within the way the mind works in general? I think your failure to respond adequately to that will be sufficient proof that your views in this are incoherent. No one wanted to play ball with my postulate either. I had a great little exposition on the Euthyphro Dilemma, with a preemptive heading off of Aquinas' apologetics and Spinoza's rationalizations tied in with the naturalistic fallacy, but I guess everyone smelled that coming. Yea I know. Much too wise our theist friends to either argue a case they know they will lose. Thus you get a dry "you give him too much credit" - why??? Or a simple side step or disregard. None of them will actually put forward a description of how morality is derived from god and promulgsted amongst the non-godly. Or an explanation of how they mind works such that 'free will' occurs in the account. So whats this about the Euthyphro? Sounds fascinating..... "Is the Pious loved because it is Pious, or Pious because it is loved?" ie "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" ? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 02, 2007, 06:48:36 PM by allpoints »
|
Logged
|
slide
|
|
|
|
