| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/28/2009 12:48:48 PM · #3426 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, shouldn't we just all shut up then and let the courts decide? |
In this case, it will come down to that. If majority opinion dictated law, then we'd still have racial segregation and women couldn't vote because the alternatives were both unpopular at the time (and fiercely opposed by the same religious groups). |
|
|
|
12/28/2009 01:19:29 PM · #3427 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, we're talking about the determinism that goes with materialism. |
Perhaps, but not necessarily. As a materialist, I find the current research regarding free will to be fascinating, frustrating, (sometimes) troubling and (often) hopelessly confusing. The idea that free will does not exist seems absurd on the level of personal experience - it certainly feels like I have free will to me - but there are numerous examples in science where the actual is contra to the intuitive (quantum theory and relativity being the most obvious, but certainly not the only, examples). From my (fairly extensive, but decidedly layman's) understanding of the current state of the research, the only legitimate response to the question of free will at this time must remain - "we don't know." But that is not a reason to abandon the research or give up the search for an answer, which is exactly what appeals to "faith" or religion either tacitly or explicitly advocate.
In regard to the "important" questions of morality and basic human rights, it has never seemed counter-intuitive to me that some level of basic human rights can be grounded in a relativistic "worldview." Even if one accepts - as I do - that specific questions of human morality are subject to shift over time, that does not preclude a base level of ethical obligations by which prior, current and alternative societal mores can be evaluated. I would argue that there is at least one fundamental moral precept:
1) Maximization of autonomous participation by moral agents (that is, humans (moral agents) must be allowed to independently participate and contribute to the determination of the moral standard).
By way of example: under this precept it is conceivably moral for ten people to reach a unanimous decision that undermines the "rights" of some members of the group, but it would always be immoral for some number less than the total of the group to make such a decision as it would violate the participation of one of the moral agents, or to make a decision, even if unanimous, that undermines the rights of participation of moral agents not included in the group. This is, of course, a very Kantian/Rawlsian idea, and the idea that it can be justified as universal flows from the idea that one cannot make an ethical determination to deny the agency of some portion of the population as one would never make such a decision to deny oneself such agency. Thus, because one would not wish their own precept universalized outside of the condition where they are the favored group, such a precept may not be considered "moral."
This does not, of course get you an answer to all questions of human ethical obligation, but it does involve certain clear mandates if accepted. First is that if all potential moral agents must be allowed equality of participation, then all potential moral agents must be equipped with the tools to effectively participate - so certain basic levels of education, nutrition, safety, and etc. would be required. Second is that ethical obligations cannot be derived in such a way that earlier generations of agents are allowed to restrict the autonomy of later generations or of individual agents that are not allowed full participation in the decisional framework.
From the former mandate you can derive "objective" critiques of racism and sexism - at least as insofar as those moral frameworks prevent the full participation of the moral agency of women and/or minority racial/ethnic groups. From the latter you can derive an "objective" critique of anti-homosexual laws that prevent full participation of member of the society that are excluded based on sexual orientation.
Of course, "full participation" is a non-achievable end - humans are naturally variable in intelligence, ability and geographic location, and socially variable in experience, resources, and etc. This is where the Rawlsian aspect come in - since the moral system can never achieve the perfect level of full and equal participation (although it can aspire to it), it must be designed in a way that does not preference those already in a preferred position. (What society would you design if you had no idea where you would be born, who you would be born to, what economic, intelligence, and/or social advantages you would inherit, etc? That is, going into the world blind, what system would you consider "fair.")
Message edited by author 2009-12-28 16:55:18. |
|
|
|
12/28/2009 03:18:47 PM · #3428 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Geez, I just can't resist.
Ricahrd, isn't the statement "your personal beliefs shouldn't be the basis for anything beyond the personal" a personal belief in itself? How do you then apply it to me? I'm not you. |
Uh no. It's merely stating the obvious. What part of personal do you not understand? It implies the singular does it not? |
Uh yeah. The word "should" gives it away as a value judgement. You can't just claim that this statement is not a "personal belief".
|
A Personal Belief is a view or opinion belonging to or applying to one particular individual.
Is that better? I didn't use the word "should" this time. If you have a better definition by all means share it.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My rebuttal is logically consistent and you can't just ignore that.
|
Your rebuttal was to ignore my main point (i.e. the part you failed to quote in your reply).
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Clearly a majority of our society do not agree with your statement. They feel that personal beliefs about morality should extend to the entire society. If that doesn't expose your statement as "personal belief" then I'm not sure what to tell you... |
Argumentum ad populum. Surely you have a better response than this?
Message edited by author 2009-12-28 16:20:52.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2009 03:55:25 PM · #3429 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
What society would you design if you had no idea where you would be born, who you would be born to, what economic, intelligence, and/or social advantages you would inherit, etc? That is, going into the world blind, what system would you consider "fair." |
That's an excellent description. :-) |
|
|
|
12/28/2009 04:49:41 PM · #3430 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
What society would you design if you had no idea where you would be born, who you would be born to, what economic, intelligence, and/or social advantages you would inherit, etc? That is, going into the world blind, what system would you consider "fair." |
That's an excellent description. :-) |
I'm guessing everyone would opt for the fairest one possible. If only it were that easy.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2009 05:02:03 PM · #3431 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
What society would you design if you had no idea where you would be born, who you would be born to, what economic, intelligence, and/or social advantages you would inherit, etc? That is, going into the world blind, what system would you consider "fair." |
. . .
I'm guessing everyone would opt for the fairest one possible. If only it were that easy. |
Where in my full post above would you get the idea that I though such a task was easy? I would say decidedly the opposite, and likely a task that is worthwhile in the (continual) pursuit rather than the (likely unobtainable) accomplishment.
I will say though that much of the brilliance of Rawls formulation lies in the realization that at least some of the "difficult" moral questions become quite easily resolved (at least in theory, if not in practice) when looked at from the perspective of the short formulation above. |
|
|
|
12/28/2009 06:21:42 PM · #3432 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Perhaps, but not necessarily. As a materialist, I find the current research regarding free will to be fascinating, frustrating, (sometimes) troubling and (often) hopelessly confusing. ... Of course, "full participation" is a non-achievable end - humans are naturally variable in intelligence, ability and geographic location, and socially variable in experience, resources, and etc. This is where the Rawlsian aspect come in ... That is, going into the world blind, what system would you consider "fair.") |
This, in the context of this thread, is an extraordinary post, and I applaud it. For those of you who are trying to abstract the last sentence from it and invalidate the "quest", I basically cry "shame on you!", because there's a whole lot of serious meat in that sandwich, if you'd just trouble to gnaw on it.
R. |
|
|
|
12/28/2009 08:28:05 PM · #3433 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
What society would you design if you had no idea where you would be born, who you would be born to, what economic, intelligence, and/or social advantages you would inherit, etc? That is, going into the world blind, what system would you consider "fair." |
. . .
I'm guessing everyone would opt for the fairest one possible. If only it were that easy. |
Where in my full post above would you get the idea that I though such a task was easy? I would say decidedly the opposite, and likely a task that is worthwhile in the (continual) pursuit rather than the (likely unobtainable) accomplishment.
I will say though that much of the brilliance of Rawls formulation lies in the realization that at least some of the "difficult" moral questions become quite easily resolved (at least in theory, if not in practice) when looked at from the perspective of the short formulation above. |
I was only expressing disappointment that it wasn't easy. It would be easier though, if we could all agree to put society ahead of our own personal interests and beliefs but we're much too selfish for that.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2009 08:32:35 PM · #3434 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Perhaps, but not necessarily. As a materialist, I find the current research regarding free will to be fascinating, frustrating, (sometimes) troubling and (often) hopelessly confusing. ... Of course, "full participation" is a non-achievable end - humans are naturally variable in intelligence, ability and geographic location, and socially variable in experience, resources, and etc. This is where the Rawlsian aspect come in ... That is, going into the world blind, what system would you consider "fair.") |
This, in the context of this thread, is an extraordinary post, and I applaud it. For those of you who are trying to abstract the last sentence from it and invalidate the "quest", I basically cry "shame on you!", because there's a whole lot of serious meat in that sandwich, if you'd just trouble to gnaw on it.
R. |
Agreed. By far the best post in this thread.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2009 08:41:56 PM · #3435 |
Not going to answer this, Jason?
What personal experience of yours is it that makes you decide that gay marriage should not be allowed????
|
|
|
|
12/28/2009 09:23:55 PM · #3436 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, we're talking about the determinism that goes with materialism. |
Perhaps, but not necessarily. As a materialist, I find the current research regarding free will to be fascinating, frustrating, (sometimes) troubling and (often) hopelessly confusing. The idea that free will does not exist seems absurd on the level of personal experience - it certainly feels like I have free will to me - but there are numerous examples in science where the actual is contra to the intuitive (quantum theory and relativity being the most obvious, but certainly not the only, examples). From my (fairly extensive, but decidedly layman's) understanding of the current state of the research, the only legitimate response to the question of free will at this time must remain - "we don't know." But that is not a reason to abandon the research or give up the search for an answer, which is exactly what appeals to "faith" or religion either tacitly or explicitly advocate.
|
First of all SP, I will echo a few others to say posts like this make participating in Rant (almost) worth it. :) Thanks for a thought out, open, and intellectually honest post. I really do appreciate it.
I only quoted the first paragraph because I want to point something out I think to be of crucial importance. I completely share your feeling that "the idea that Free Will does not exist seems absurd on the level of personal experience", and I will say for me this is one of the reasons I reject Materialism and turn to God. I find that your statement (it is absurd to think we don't have Free Will) leads to a logical dilemma for the Materialist. If on one hand I accept my instincts that I do have Free Will (that is, my brain is not simply a product of its molecular subroutines), then Materialism crumbles, for it only takes one example of a non-material phenomenon to wreck the whole thing and I think you may understand better than others here the possibly very real incompatibility between Materialism and Free Will. If, on the other hand, I reject my instincts that I have Free Will (ie. it is an illusion), then I feel one quickly falls into a Solipsistic abyss. If I cannot trust what seems with all my heart and mind to be true, what CAN I trust?
Personally (and, again, I speak only for me), I choose to chuck Materialism rather than find myself in the latter position. |
|
|
|
12/28/2009 11:33:05 PM · #3437 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"the idea that Free Will does not exist seems absurd on the level of personal experience" |
The idea that the solid ground beneath us moves while the stars are fixed also seemed absurd from personal experience until we understood the reality. Perception doesn't always equal reality.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I find that your statement (it is absurd to think we don't have Free Will) leads to a logical dilemma for the Materialist. |
The two are not mutually exclusive. I think, therefore I am. Other animals think, therefore they are, too. Interfere with the flow of electrons and chemicals in the brain, and that sense of free will can go bye-bye. |
|
|
|
12/28/2009 11:43:45 PM · #3438 |
I agree with your first statement Shannon. The problem is that I know ME better than I know anything else (because I'm not anything else, I'm ME) and the perception is I have Free Will. If it's wrong, as I said, I'm not sure I can trust anything else.
I don't get your second statement at all. |
|
|
|
12/29/2009 02:13:57 AM · #3439 |
Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?
|
|
|
|
12/29/2009 07:51:15 AM · #3440 |
|
|
|
12/29/2009 09:43:23 AM · #3441 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I completely share your feeling that "the idea that Free Will does not exist seems absurd on the level of personal experience", and I will say for me this is one of the reasons I reject Materialism and turn to God. I find that your statement (it is absurd to think we don't have Free Will) leads to a logical dilemma for the Materialist. If on one hand I accept my instincts that I do have Free Will (that is, my brain is not simply a product of its molecular subroutines), then Materialism crumbles, for it only takes one example of a non-material phenomenon to wreck the whole thing and I think you may understand better than others here the possibly very real incompatibility between Materialism and Free Will. If, on the other hand, I reject my instincts that I have Free Will (ie. it is an illusion), then I feel one quickly falls into a Solipsistic abyss. If I cannot trust what seems with all my heart and mind to be true, what CAN I trust?
Personally (and, again, I speak only for me), I choose to chuck Materialism rather than find myself in the latter position. |
That is certainly your choice, and you seem at least to be doing it with a conscious awareness that you are rejecting what is a possible (if perhaps troubling) reality. There is no necessary reason why strictly materialist mechanisms would rule out the possibility of free will, although it is probably incompatible with any sort of contra-causal free will - that being the sort of dualistic, soul/body form of free will with which most religions are concerned. Current research on the subject is still in its infancy, however, so the ultimate answer to the question may look very different from the likely overly simplistic either/or model of free will that we are discussing in this thread. |
|
|
|
12/29/2009 10:20:57 AM · #3442 |
| In Texas today is Tuesday. |
|
|
|
12/29/2009 10:25:34 AM · #3443 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Yes. |
Nice! Thanks for the link. :-) |
|
|
|
12/29/2009 02:29:39 PM · #3444 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
...so the ultimate answer to the question may look very different from the likely overly simplistic either/or model of free will that we are discussing in this thread. |
That is, of course, a third possibility. But at this point, in my opinion, it takes real "faith" (in the strong meaning) to choose that option. I'm not saying it's not reasonable, but I choose to put my faith elsewhere. |
|
|
|
12/29/2009 05:44:23 PM · #3445 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
...so the ultimate answer to the question may look very different from the likely overly simplistic either/or model of free will that we are discussing in this thread. |
That is, of course, a third possibility. But at this point, in my opinion, it takes real "faith" (in the strong meaning) to choose that option. I'm not saying it's not reasonable, but I choose to put my faith elsewhere. |
It is not faith to acknowledge the various possibilities and then wait for more evidence. "Don't know, needs more investigation" is the place in science where all the really interesting stuff happens. |
|
|
|
12/29/2009 06:23:34 PM · #3446 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
...so the ultimate answer to the question may look very different from the likely overly simplistic either/or model of free will that we are discussing in this thread. |
That is, of course, a third possibility. But at this point, in my opinion, it takes real "faith" (in the strong meaning) to choose that option. I'm not saying it's not reasonable, but I choose to put my faith elsewhere. |
It is not faith to acknowledge the various possibilities and then wait for more evidence. "Don't know, needs more investigation" is the place in science where all the really interesting stuff happens. |
I agree with this, but in my view this is somewhat different than a purely scientific proposition. One's life is bound to be affected by the outcome of such a question and for this reason people will naturally make a choice before the answer is known beyond doubt. So I'm quite happy that people keep investigating (I'm a scientist after all), but I don't buy the idea that you (or anybody else) lives life without having made a guess already.
Message edited by author 2009-12-29 18:23:45. |
|
|
|
12/29/2009 07:45:36 PM · #3447 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One's life is bound to be affected by the outcome of such a question and for this reason people will naturally make a choice before the answer is known beyond doubt. So I'm quite happy that people keep investigating (I'm a scientist after all), but I don't buy the idea that you (or anybody else) lives life without having made a guess already. |
As a "scientist," you should already be aware that there's a big difference between making a guess (hypothesizing) and assuming you know the answer. It's very well established that such a presumption becomes a search for confirmation rather than objective truth, and any possible sign subjectively reinforces the bias. Given that the concept of fate has figured prominently in many cultures, and that children who die young wouldn't have a clue, it's pretty safe to say that MANY people have lived their lives without guessing the nature of free will at all.
The religious concept of free will is a fatal contradiction of itself: you aren't really free to make your own choices if you'll suffer eternally for not making the correct, predetermined ones you're supposed to follow. The idea that such a critical "test" of free will would be completely inaccessible to large parts of the population (12th century America, etc.), virtually identical to long abandoned Bronze-age mythologies, AND so vague and open to interpretation that even members of the same church can't agree on its meaning, isn't exactly compelling. It seems to rely upon early, repetitive indoctrination and fear of repercussion rather than any sort of evidence or reasoning (the "Santa Claus is watching you" principle), and the claim that "one's life is bound to be affected by the outcome of such a question and for this reason people will naturally make a choice before the answer is known beyond doubt" is eerily similar to older kids choosing the believe in Santa Claus even if their friends don't... just in case. |
|
|
|
12/29/2009 08:23:08 PM · #3448 |
Hey look everybody! It's an atheist ripping down another belief system! Frankly that seems to be all atheism is good for these days. "I don't stand for anything, but your view sucks eggs!"
Anyway, to me, the difference between "making a guess (hypothesizing)" and "assuming you know the answer" is negligible when it comes to questions of life (rather than purely questions of science like "how many moons does Jupiter have?"). One is a bit more arrogant than the other, but they probably look much the same in the end.
The deliciously ironic thing is if atheism becomes wildly successful and 100 years from now 80% of Americans are atheist, Shannons argument would then work against him. Aw, ya, you are atheist just cuz your mamma was one! Why don't you grow some balls and try being a Buddhist!
And frankly, this quote, "It seems to rely upon early, repetitive indoctrination and fear of repercussion rather than any sort of evidence or reasoning." is quite insulting. Only the priggishly arrogant would dare say such a thing.
Message edited by author 2009-12-29 20:29:19. |
|
|
|
12/29/2009 08:29:27 PM · #3449 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hey look everybody! It's an atheist ripping down another belief system! Frankly that seems to be all atheism is good for these days. "I don't stand for anything, but your view sucks eggs!" |
I only pointed out that this particular aspect doesn't make sense. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Anyway, to me, the difference between "making a guess (hypothesizing)" and "assuming you know the answer" is negligible when it comes to questions of life... One is a bit more arrogant than the other, but they probably look much the same in the end. |
Aren't you sort of hoping they're VERY different in the end? |
|
|
|
12/29/2009 08:34:38 PM · #3450 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And frankly, this quote, "It seems to rely upon early, repetitive indoctrination and fear of repercussion rather than any sort of evidence or reasoning." is quite insulting. |
Only if it smacks of the truth.
Which this statement indicates.....
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I bring my personal experience to the table and decide gay marriage should not be allowed. |
|
|
