• Freewill VS Determinism
    67 replies, posted
[QUOTE=matsta;35073037]That isn't the point. The point is that we can't think of should when [I]we know[/I] everything is set for us. There is no point of thinking what we should do if we know that it doesn't change anything. Morals would be absurd, and of course you would say they would be predetermined to be absurd, but that is just saying that morals don't serve for their purpose, and the discussion here is about determinism affecting morals. It does.[/QUOTE] I like how you say that my argument is irrelevant, because you don't agree with it. [b]You're[/b] saying that determinism affects morality. [b]I'm[/b] saying it doesn't. Not to mention, your counter in this post is still flawed. [quote=matsta]The point is that we can't think of should when we know everything is set for us.[/quote] Okay, but what about for people who don't know that the universe is deterministic? Say, for example, you? Or anyone else who believes in free-will? Or any other theory that's non-deterministic? Does the fact that they don't know their fates are predetermined suddenly somehow, magically, without explanation, make them inherently different from those who do? Does the fact they don't know everything is set for us make it so they can magically think of shoulds? If someone were to suddenly know everything is set for them, would they no longer be able to think of shoulds? Would the shoulds they used to think it suddenly cease to exist? Would it be that if someone went their whole life without knowing the universe was determinist, thus making their morals "valid" (for lack of a better word), that if they were to suddenly learn the universe was determinist, their morals would instantaneously become invalidated? What about the choices they made before this realization? Would they suddenly lose any moral meaning to the universe that they previously held? What people know about their fates shouldn't in any way affect morality. And that is assuming that determinism does somehow affect morality, which I assert it does not. What more, how is my saying how we can think in shoulds not the point, when you say the point is whether or not we can think in shoulds? How is the concept of us being predetermined to think in shoulds, not thinking in shoulds? If I tell you to think of hamburgers, and you think of a hamburger, are you somehow, inexplicably, not thinking about hamburgers, simply because I told you to? How would the origin of our thoughts, in any way, change whether or not we have them? If we are predetermined to think in shoulds, then we think in shoulds. If determinism is false, and we choose to think in shoulds, then we think in shoulds. How exactly are the thinking-in-shoulds from determinism, as opposed to the thinking-in-shoulds from free-will, different?
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;35073127]Okay, but what about for people who don't know that the universe is deterministic? Say, for example, you? Or anyone else who believes in free-will? Or any other theory that's non-deterministic? Does the fact that they don't know their fates are predetermined suddenly somehow, magically, without explanation, make them inherently different from those who do?[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that [B]the ignorance of[/B] the fact that the universe is deterministic make people's morals valid. What I am saying is that [B]the fact[/B] that the universe is deterministic makes people's morals invalid and renders morality like not serving for it's intended purpose. [editline]9th March 2012[/editline] I never said I didn't believe in determinism, I was making an objection against the idea that morals and no-free-will are compatible.
[QUOTE=matsta;35073161]I'm not saying that [B]the ignorance of[/B] the fact that the universe is deterministic make people's morals valid. What I am saying is that [B]the fact[/B] that the universe is deterministic makes people's morals invalid and renders morality like not serving for it's intended purpose. [editline]9th March 2012[/editline] I never said I didn't believe in determinism, I was making an objection against the idea that morals and no-free-will are compatible.[/QUOTE] What if I were to say morals are irrelevant? Does that mean they stop existing? Morality and determinism are not necessarily incompatible. The latter may negate the value that people put into the former, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Morality can exist in determinism - it's just that the morality is predetermined to exist, and thusly any value that people put into them from "choice" becomes irrelevant. So I suppose it more accurately depends on what exactly you're trying to argue. Are you trying to argue that morals can not exist within a deterministic world? If so, then I disagree with you. Or are you trying to argue that morals can not have significance within a deterministic world? If so, then I agree with you.
[QUOTE=matsta;35073100]That would not be morals, the whole point of morals is that we do what we [I]should[/I] do, but nature doesn't tell you what you should do, only you do.[/QUOTE] I would argue otherwise, because we are social animals. If killing, raping, and stealing people's belongings is going to get you outcast from the tribe and killed out in the wild (I would call this a form of natural selection), you probably [b]shouldn't[/b] kill, rape, and steal.
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;35073198]What if I were to say morals are irrelevant?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=matsta;35073198]That isn't, of course, an objection against determinism, just telling you that it does [B]affect[/B] morals in some way.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;35073198]Are you trying to argue that morals can not exist within a deterministic world? If so, then I disagree with you. Or are you trying to argue that morals can not have significance within a deterministic world? If so, then I agree with you.[/QUOTE] I think morality exists as such only if is has a significance. If it didn't then it wound't be morality. [QUOTE=Noble;35073199]I would argue otherwise, because we are social animals. If killing, raping, and stealing people's belongings is going to get you outcast from the tribe and killed out in the wild (I would call this a form of natural selection), you probably [b]shouldn't[/b] kill, rape, and steal.[/QUOTE] Yet some people do some of those things acting according to their moral principle. The conclusion that you shouldn't kill rape or steal [B]comes from the assumption that getting outcast from the tribe or getting killed is something 'bad'[/B]. And, although you would argue that we would 'naturally' accept those things as bad and whoever doesn't is just a 'sick specimen', I will tell you that even that sick specimen can act morally if he believes in the presence of a reason which renders some of those things as things one ought to do.
It all depends on how you define "free will". I for one would say that universe is completely deterministic and our decisions are a result of a physical process, but we still have free will, because I define it as, say, motivations generated by human brain and not implanted in the form of an order from another person.
[QUOTE=Nikita;35117048]It all depends on how you define "free will". I for one would say that universe is completely deterministic and our decisions are a result of a physical process, but we still have free will, because I define it as, say, motivations generated by human brain and not implanted in the form of an order from another person.[/QUOTE] That hardly makes sense. Anyone another person does affects the choices you make, whether or not they give you an order.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.