Originally posted by TacDavey
[B]In this scenario everyone came out on top. There was no harm done. Does that mean as long as we intend for an outcome like that one we can go around stealing whatever we want? No.
Originally posted by Digi
Correlation /= Causation. It's an old maxim, but true enough here. You have no way of knowing this. You're just interpreting it to suit your opinion.
I'm not just interpreting it without any link whatsoever, though.
Originally posted by Digi
I've made it quite clear that I was excluding teens in my defense of premarital sex, and you tried to call me out on teen sex. So, "ahem," do get your facts straight.And yes, it would depend on one's definition. If you're emotionally stable enough to handle it, and many are, your example of 3rd date sex isn't the worst thing in the world. Not the right choice for many, but also not inherently bad.
I didn't say it was the worst thing in the world. I said it wasn't appropriately cautious.
Originally posted by Digi
Yes, exactly. But that's why I defined what I meant by freedom. There's no such thing as freedom of choice as understood by most Christians. It's incompatible with a deterministic universe.So freedom in no-fault determinism isn't your idea of free will, but rather "Is the choice your own?" If an outside influence forces a decision upon you, through coercion, force, violence, blackmail, etc. it is robbing you of your freedom. Your choice may be determined according to the laws of reality, but it should be your own. For a simple example: "I want vanilla ice cream." "No, you'll get chocolate or I won't go to the movie with you." Silly, but you get the idea. More soberly, we could return to the example of rape for an obvious escalation of this idea.
i.e. You don't want {insert choice}. But somebody forces it upon you, directly or indirectly. Or: you want {choice} but somebody prevents you. It's a loss of freedom without ever having to approach the Christian idea of free will.
Obviously you and I disagree on the subject of free will, but this seems to be getting a little off topic. Perhaps a discussion for another thread.
Originally posted by Digi
There's also passages on stoning, violence, slaughter, and arbitrary punishments for things we barely consider crimes anymore. It's all about interpretation, and yours is not the only one.
Obviously I believe it to be the right one, though. The simple fact that there can be other interpretations means nothing. Any real research into the Bible will show that stoning and violence, while done at one point long long ago, are not suppose to be practiced anymore, and that the Bible clearly states that you are not suppose to judge anyone, and that you are not suppose to hate anyone for any reason.
Any group of people who look at the Bible and come away with the idea that we are suppose to hate ANYONE is either not properly reading/studying the Bible, or is deliberately twisting a passage to give them an excuse to hate.
once again, their fault.
Originally posted by Digi
I hear that "not lying with another man" line thrown around a lot. Again, it's just about what you want to believe. They aren't doing what you think the Bible commands, but you don't have a monopoly on interpretation.
Like I said, the fact that there are those interpreting it differently, I would say incorrectly, doesn't mean anything. I see the message from the Bible, and the message from Christianity specifically, as pretty straight forward.
Originally posted by Digi
None, but this is nowhere near analogous to the epic, complex, often ambiguous messages in the Bible. If the Bible was this straightforward and non-contradictory, we wouldn't have this problem.
I don't see it as ambiguous or contradictory. At least not in terms of hate or evil. It says, very blatantly, don't do it.
Originally posted by Digi
A good start...Sure they do. Good intentions don't guarantee the results of the action will be good, it could end up as bad, but if there is TRULY only good intentions, where is the fault?
The fault is you cannot take something that isn't yours. That action is unfair to the person who is having their thing taken. Even if you mean well, that fact is you are taking someone's property without their consent. It's an invasion of their rights.
Originally posted by Digi
To answer your question, I'd teach my kids to constantly monitor their own motivations, and to avoid actions that would be considered selfish at the expense of someone else. To say "don't ever steal" would be far too absolutist. I would want to have them think critically about their decisions, not give them unbending rules to follow.It may be true that there are some cases when stealing would be acceptable, but those cases would not be acceptable based off of what the thief's intentions were. In fact, I would say there are practically no examples of where stealing is good, but rather it may be the lesser of two evils.
[QUOTE=13894293]Originally posted by Digi
[B] But most stealing isn't with good intentions. In fact, almost none of it is. You seem to think that by admitting stealing can be good, that you're giving a free pass for people to steal all the time. That is far from the case.
That's not what I was saying. I was saying that the simple fact that stealing can produce good, does not mean stealing itself is good. It's a wrong action that can produce a good effect.
Originally posted by Digi
Perhaps, but you are blameless because of your noble intent.
I disagree. You are still infringing on someone's right to own their own property and not have it forcefully removed from their possession. Even if your intentions were good, even if the end result was good, that doesn't give you the right to decide what someone does with something THEY own.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The other vastly more sexually liberal parts of Western world (almost all of it) have much lower rates of teen pregnancy than the United States. Only Canada and Russia are even close and both of them have about half the American teen pregnancy rate.
I'm still not sure what this proves. So there are more pregnant teens in America. That does nothing to refute the fact that teenage sex is harmful.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The rate of teen pregnancy in the US appears to be neither particularly high or low by historical standards since reliable records have been available. Compared to the 80s and 90s it is extremely low. The peak seen in the 90s was part of an increase that goes back at least to the 70s so its arguably atypical. Before the 70s records only seem to be available for "birth rate", which is dramatically lower than it used to be but can involve various factors (such as increased abortion).
According to the article I posted earlier, the rate of teenage pregnancies alone has not increased, but the rate of unintended teenage pregnancy has since a while back people were actually getting married and having kids while still teenagers.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Why isn't it? I don't necessarily disagree with you--indeed we can't be sure how things will turn out--but I want to know you're doing more than just saying "it's bad because it's bad" or at least I want you to admit that that's what you're doing.
I'm saying it's bad because you are infringing on someones right to decide what they want to do with their own property. Even if nothing but good comes out of it, the fact still remains that you have no right to decide for someone else what to do with something THEY own.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
^We agree there, but then how does this apply to premarital sex where both are consenting?Who's rights are being infringed on there?
No ones. That wasn't the point of my connection. My point was that just because good CAN come out of something, that doesn't make the thing right. It doesn't even make the thing not bad, which Digi seemed to suggest when he made the point that there are cases where premarital sex produces good.
Originally posted by TacDavey
According to the article I posted earlier, the rate of teenage pregnancies alone has not increased, but the rate of unintended teenage pregnancy has since a while back people were actually getting married and having kids while still teenagers.
They don't have any numbers (or mention any sources) to make a comparison with so that's down to little more than speculation in my book.
I have two major reasons to doubt the claim without better backing:
There were (and are) significant social pressures that would push a pregnant teenager to marry as soon as possible and pretend the child was conceived while married which skews the numbers an unknowable amount.
You need to fit the substantial increase in teen pregnancies into a less than two year window, and since marriage records don't show 18 or 19 as the typical age of marriage for women that is virtually impossible.
Not to mention that I don't think married 18-year-olds raising children is any better than unmarried ones.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You need to fit the substantial increase in teen pregnancies into a less than two year window, and since marriage records don't show 18 or 19 as the typical age of marriage for women that is virtually impossible.
Forget this point.
The minimum age was 18. The average age was just over 20. Since there is much more room for skew toward a higher number the typical age had to be less than twenty (unless no one ever married after 22).
Originally posted by TacDavey
I didn't say it was the worst thing in the world. I said it wasn't appropriately cautious.
"Worst thing in the world" is just a figure of speech. I will, however, oblige your exactitude from here on out.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Obviously you and I disagree on the subject of free will, but this seems to be getting a little off topic. Perhaps a discussion for another thread.
No, we're staying enough on-topic, let's pursue this. Do you have reason to believe the universe isn't deterministic? It's very relevant to concepts of morality and sin, so I don't think we'd even be leaving the core of our topic by discussing it.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Obviously I believe it to be the right one, though. The simple fact that there can be other interpretations means nothing. Any real research into the Bible will show that stoning and violence, while done at one point long long ago, are not suppose to be practiced anymore, and that the Bible clearly states that you are not suppose to judge anyone, and that you are not suppose to hate anyone for any reason.Any group of people who look at the Bible and come away with the idea that we are suppose to hate ANYONE is either not properly reading/studying the Bible, or is deliberately twisting a passage to give them an excuse to hate.
once again, their fault.
Ok, let's say this: your interpretation of religion isn't at fault. Many are. I don't give a sh*t about the "good" people when it comes to religious intolerance. You're probably a pretty decent dude in real life. However, my issue is with the institution of religion as a whole which, yes, creates hatred in many. Because, remove your religion and you'd still be a good person, more or less. I'm sure you were raised ok, or had influences that led to your current state. However, remove religion from those persecuting in the name of their God, and there would be less suffering in the world. Unequivocally, without doubt, less suffering.
People are at fault, that's been your whole point. But people create religion. They believe in it and they follow it. It helps guide their lives. People are at fault, but people are religious. You cannot remove one from the other.
I'm interested in what I see in the world. Not academic Christian philosophy saying "well, all that bad they're doing isn't religion's fault." Because while you're saying that, thousands of Christians are hating other races, creeds, and lifestyles because of their God. Your insistence doesn't change reality, it just means you're unwilling to admit religion's hand in suffering.
Because what you're saying is: if a person reads a Bible passage and because of it does something good, it's religion's doing. But if they read a Bible passage and do something bad as a result, it isn't religion's doing. Please tell me you see the flaw.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I disagree. You are still infringing on someone's right to own their own property and not have it forcefully removed from their possession. Even if your intentions were good, even if the end result was good, that doesn't give you the right to decide what someone does with something THEY own.
You lack imagination. Is there no scenario in which you would steal? Kill? A diabetic woman is addicted to sweets. She's seeking help but is struggling. Steal her cookies so she lives? No, of course not. Because bad actions are bad, and can't be good even if the outcome is good.
Steal from a thief to return it to the original owner? Steal from corrupt officials Robin-Hood style who are technically lawful but stripping the poor of hope?
Or grey area. Steal from a moral, decent middle-class family to help feed your starving child? That's not 100% one way or the other, and shows the ridiculousness of trying to set absolutes like "stealing is bad." Because sometimes, it obviously is. Other times it obviously isn't. And sometimes it isn't obviously anything, like this most recent example.
Let's kick it up a notch. A terrorist is holding the button to a bomb that would kill hundreds of innocents. You're holding a gun. Kill him before he presses it?
But killing is bad.
And now back home. Two emotionally stable adults have premarital sex. No babies, STD's, or emotional scars.
But sex is bad before marriage.
I do the last one a fair amount. Am I in sin? Are you arrogant enough to make that proclamation about someone who is doing nothing to harm anyone? I'm interested.
Originally posted by TacDavey
No ones. That wasn't the point of my connection. My point was that just because good CAN come out of something, that doesn't make the thing right. It doesn't even make the thing not bad, which Digi seemed to suggest when he made the point that there are cases where premarital sex produces good.
The way I see it there are a few reasons why an act can be wrong: done for the wrong intentions, has bad consequences, infringes on another's rights (and for the sake of argument lets assume we both agree that people have certain rights, like the right to property and the right not to be used).
But if none of these things apply, as is the case with plenty of casual pre-marital sex, then where is the fault? Is it the mere possibility of something wrong happening? If that's the case then the list of things that are "wrong" increases to encapsulate all but the most innocuous of acts like buttering bread.
Originally posted by Digi
"Worst thing in the world" is just a figure of speech. I will, however, oblige your exactitude from here on out.
And I was using it as such. As in "Worst thing in the world" = "Super Super terrible". That's what you meant, right?
Originally posted by Digi
No, we're staying enough on-topic, let's pursue this. Do you have reason to believe the universe isn't deterministic? It's very relevant to concepts of morality and sin, so I don't think we'd even be leaving the core of our topic by discussing it.
Well, hey, you're a moderator, so if you're fine with it I guess I'm in the clear.
While I would say that actions or events are influenced by past events, I see no reason to think that past events demand something happen with no possibility for different outcomes.
Originally posted by Digi
Ok, let's say this: your interpretation of religion isn't at fault. Many are. I don't give a sh*t about the "good" people when it comes to religious intolerance. You're probably a pretty decent dude in real life. However, my issue is with the institution of religion as a whole which, yes, creates hatred in many. Because, remove your religion and you'd still be a good person, more or less. I'm sure you were raised ok, or had influences that led to your current state. However, remove religion from those persecuting in the name of their God, and there would be less suffering in the world. Unequivocally, without doubt, less suffering.
But I've already shown why that simple fact is not enough to lay fault on one thing or another. Just because removing something from an problem situation solves the problem does not mean that thing is what was at fault.
I could just as easily say that removing people's hateful attitudes towards others would also produce less suffering in the world. The difference is my example actually is the direct cause of the pain and suffering. Your example is suggesting to remove a player from the problem, but not the cause.
Originally posted by Digi
People are at fault, that's been your whole point. But people create religion. They believe in it and they follow it. It helps guide their lives. People are at fault, but people are religious. You cannot remove one from the other.
I disagree. Religion and people are not the same. Religion is something people can believe in and people can use and its a big part of their lives, in most cases, but it's still it's own separate thing independent of those that follow it. In the same way feminism is it's own set of beliefs. If I went around claiming to be a feminist, yet thought all women should not be allowed to vote and that hey should never leave the kitchen, that doesn't mean feminism is adopting those views, it means that I'm not really a feminist. Because me as a person and the feminist belief system are two separate things.
Originally posted by Digi
I'm interested in what I see in the world. Not academic Christian philosophy saying "well, all that bad they're doing isn't religion's fault." Because while you're saying that, thousands of Christians are hating other races, creeds, and lifestyles because of their God. Your insistence doesn't change reality, it just means you're unwilling to admit religion's hand in suffering.
No, what it means is that thousands of people are claiming to be Christians while ignoring what it means to actually be one.
Sticking with the example above, if I went around claiming to be a feminist all the while trying to get women's right removed, would you think feminism was breading evil? Or would you think I wasn't actually a feminist, even though I claimed to be and even went to all the meetings? Heck, maybe I even thought I WAS a feminist.
Originally posted by Digi
Because what you're saying is: if a person reads a Bible passage and because of it does something good, it's religion's doing. But if they read a Bible passage and do something bad as a result, it isn't religion's doing. Please tell me you see the flaw.
That really depends on what the verse is you are reading though. If the verse says "Help the homeless" and because of reading and being taught that verse you go out and help the homeless then I would say the religion played a role. If the verse says "don't kill your neighbor" and you go out and kill your neighbor, then I WOULDN'T say religion was the cause.
Following that same train of thought, if the verse says "Kill your neighbor" and because of being taught that way and learning that religion you go out and kill your neighbor then I WOULD see it as religion's fault, at least to some degree.
Originally posted by Digi
You lack imagination. Is there no scenario in which you would steal? Kill? A diabetic woman is addicted to sweets. She's seeking help but is struggling. Steal her cookies so she lives? No, of course not. Because bad actions are bad, and can't be good even if the outcome is good.
That doesn't make the action good, it makes it the lesser of two evils.
Originally posted by Digi
Steal from a thief to return it to the original owner?
I wouldn't really consider this stealing.
Originally posted by Digi
Steal from corrupt officials Robin-Hood style who are technically lawful but stripping the poor of hope?
Like I said. Doesn't make stealing good. Just makes it the lesser of two evils. And, by the way, that's assuming that in this hypothetical situation stealing was literally the only way of solving the problem.
Originally posted by Digi
Or grey area. Steal from a moral, decent middle-class family to help feed your starving child? That's not 100% one way or the other, and shows the ridiculousness of trying to set absolutes like "stealing is bad." Because sometimes, it obviously is. Other times it obviously isn't. And sometimes it isn't obviously anything, like this most recent example.
Like I said. That doesn't mean forcefully taking an innocent families property away from them is good. It means the alternative was worse.
Originally posted by Digi
Let's kick it up a notch. A terrorist is holding the button to a bomb that would kill hundreds of innocents. You're holding a gun. Kill him before he presses it?But killing is bad.
I don't think I ever said killing in self defense or in defense of others was bad.
Originally posted by Digi
And now back home. Two emotionally stable adults have premarital sex. No babies, STD's, or emotional scars.But sex is bad before marriage.
I do the last one a fair amount. Am I in sin? Are you arrogant enough to make that proclamation about someone who is doing nothing to harm anyone? I'm interested.
This comes back to whether or not premarital sex is harmful. Once again, just because it's possible for an action to produce no harm, doesn't mean said action isn't wrong.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Which is essentially saying nothing useful.The way I see it there are a few reasons why an act can be wrong: done for the wrong intentions, has bad consequences, infringes on another's rights (and for the sake of argument lets assume we both agree that people have certain rights, like the right to property and the right not to be used).
But if none of these things apply, as is the case with plenty of casual pre-marital sex, then where is the fault? Is it the mere possibility of something wrong happening? If that's the case then the list of things that are "wrong" increases to encapsulate all but the most innocuous of acts like buttering bread.
There is obviously a line to draw. If the chance of harm being done is one in two hundred billion then I would have a hard time calling the action wrong. That being said, that doesn't mean that the potential risk of harm isn't still a valid reason to consider an action wrong. If there is a 9 in 10 chance that an action will kill 100 children, with the remaining 1 chance doing no harm, the action would obviously be wrong even though it isn't a certainty that the action will produce harm.
Originally posted by TacDaveyThere is obviously a line to draw. If the chance of harm being done is one in two hundred billion then I would have a hard time calling the action wrong. That being said, that doesn't mean that the potential risk of harm isn't still a valid reason to consider an action wrong. If there is a 9 in 10 chance that an action will kill 100 children, with the remaining 1 chance doing no harm, the action would obviously be wrong even though it isn't a certainty that the action will produce harm.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Well, hey, you're a moderator, so if you're fine with it I guess I'm in the clear.While I would say that actions or events are influenced by past events, I see no reason to think that past events demand something happen with no possibility for different outcomes.
Yes, but how or why? I know you don't believe your actions are deterministic, I'm looking for a justification for that belief.
Because we're made of the exact same stuff as the rest of the universe, subject to the same rules. What allows us to defy the physical laws of the universe? And "A soul" or "God's Will" are red herrings; I'm talking about actual causal mechanisms or logical justifications.
Originally posted by TacDavey
This comes back to whether or not premarital sex is harmful. Once again, just because it's possible for an action to produce no harm, doesn't mean said action isn't wrong.
You're still thinking in absolutist terms. You start with "{X} is bad." Then, no matter what, X is bad. Even when X is good, X is bad. The good is an exception, but doesn't change that the action is inherently bad. I named like 4 examples where 99% of normal, moral people would either steal, kill, or seriously consider those actions, and would do so with a clear conscience. There's dozens more examples we could name if pressed. And they'd be justified for having a clear conscience, because morality is not as black and white as you're attempting to paint it.
Your beliefs are a dogma, though, and you're clinging strongly to them.
All I'm trying to get you to admit is "X can be good or bad." And that even if X is usually bad, when it is good, it is good. We're a bit torn on the ratio of good/bad in this particular instance, but I'm speaking more in general at this point.
Originally posted by TacDavey
There is obviously a line to draw. If the chance of harm being done is one in two hundred billion then I would have a hard time calling the action wrong. That being said, that doesn't mean that the potential risk of harm isn't still a valid reason to consider an action wrong. If there is a 9 in 10 chance that an action will kill 100 children, with the remaining 1 chance doing no harm, the action would obviously be wrong even though it isn't a certainty that the action will produce harm.
Another strawman. This scenario is set up to be bad either way. There are many scenarios where there is no moral dilemma or inherent risk, but that still involve an action that's normally considered wrong.
The fact that you admitted to being willing to kill in the situation I described earlier admits as much. Killing isn't wrong when it isn't wrong. Neither is anything. It's a spectrum, not black and white. I'm quite sure you possess the intellectual nuance to distinguish between good and bad even with actions you try to avoid. I think you're probably just afraid to do so because you see it as a slippery slope, or in defiance of your beliefs. It is neither.
Because all of your hedging - "There may be another solution" or "the action is still wrong" even when you can't point to the evil in the situation - is dodging. We can conceive of situations where it is the only option, and it is the necessary action to steal, kill, etc. The fact that it's a vast minority of the time doesn't change that fact, and completely annihilates the statement "X is wrong, period." It's not. Grow past such polarized thinking.
And with something like sex we can remove the "vast minority of the time" since we know that sex is often an awesome, fun, loving endeavor. Whatever the ratio may be, your assertion that it's wrong, de facto, does not hold up to common sense.
Originally posted by Digi
Yes, but how or why? I know you don't believe your actions are deterministic, I'm looking for a justification for that belief.Because we're made of the exact same stuff as the rest of the universe, subject to the same rules. What allows us to defy the physical laws of the universe? And "A soul" or "God's Will" are red herrings; I'm talking about actual causal mechanisms or logical justifications.
I see no reason to believe this is the case. I don't know what you mean by the physical laws of the universe. Why do the physical laws of the universe demand choices cannot be made freely?
Originally posted by Digi
You're still thinking in absolutist terms. You start with "{X} is bad." Then, no matter what, X is bad. Even when X is good, X is bad. The good is an exception, but doesn't change that the action is inherently bad. I named like 4 examples where 99% of normal, moral people would either steal, kill, or seriously consider those actions, and would do so with a clear conscience. There's dozens more examples we could name if pressed. And they'd be justified for having a clear conscience, because morality is not as black and white as you're attempting to paint it.
And I believe I responded to each of your examples. In them, I admitted that the choice had to be made, but I did not then consider stealing good, I considered it the lesser of two evils, because you ARE still doing someone else harm. You are still taking someone else's property without their permission. So the thing that makes stealing wrong in every other sense is still there, it's just outweighed by the wrong that would happen if you didn't steal.
Originally posted by Digi
Your beliefs are a dogma, though, and you're clinging strongly to them.All I'm trying to get you to admit is "X can be good or bad." And that even if X is usually bad, when it is good, it is good. We're a bit torn on the ratio of good/bad in this particular instance, but I'm speaking more in general at this point.
If X= something that can be good or bad then I would agree. In this case, I don't think stealing is ever good, it's just preferable over worse bads.
Originally posted by Digi
Another strawman. This scenario is set up to be bad either way. There are many scenarios where there is no moral dilemma or inherent risk, but that still involve an action that's normally considered wrong.
That's irrelevant to the point I was making, though. I was saying that it's possible for an action to have a chance at not producing harm and still being wrong, such as the example I gave.
Originally posted by Digi
The fact that you admitted to being willing to kill in the situation I described earlier admits as much. Killing isn't wrong when it isn't wrong. Neither is anything. It's a spectrum, not black and white. I'm quite sure you possess the intellectual nuance to distinguish between good and bad even with actions you try to avoid. I think you're probably just afraid to do so because you see it as a slippery slope, or in defiance of your beliefs. It is neither.
Like I've been saying. I would admit that stealing or killing is something that occasionally has to be done. That doesn't mean the action is right, it just means it has to be done to avoid a worse outcome.
Though, I don't think the killing example is even the same, since it was done in self defense/defense of others. I would say killing an INNOCENT person was always wrong.
Originally posted by Digi
Because all of your hedging - "There may be another solution" or "the action is still wrong" even when you can't point to the evil in the situation - is dodging.
I believe I have pointed to the evil in everything I have claimed to be wrong, that wasn't obvious at least.
Originally posted by Digi
We can conceive of situations where it is the only option, and it is the necessary action to steal, kill, etc. The fact that it's a vast minority of the time doesn't change that fact, and completely annihilates the statement "X is wrong, period." It's not. Grow past such polarized thinking.
My response to this would be the same as above. It's still bad, just better than the alternative.
Originally posted by Digi
And with something like sex we can remove the "vast minority of the time" since we know that sex is often an awesome, fun, loving endeavor. Whatever the ratio may be, your assertion that it's wrong, de facto, does not hold up to common sense.
You keep asserting this and I keep rejecting it. The difference is my rejections of this idea have been backed up. Yours have just been assertions.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I see no reason to believe this is the case. I don't know what you mean by the physical laws of the universe. Why do the physical laws of the universe demand choices cannot be made freely?
It's not a concept most are brought up with, so we instinctively fight against it. let me try another example. Hopefully it helps.
Say you're getting ice cream. You have two choices: chocolate and vanilla. For whatever reason, you pick vanilla. Now rewind the universe to 5 minutes before the choice of vanilla and play the scenario out again. You don't have knowledge of the choice you made on the first iteration.
What flavor will you choose in the second iteration? Vanilla. Run it again? Vanilla. Run it a thousand times. Vanilla. Why? Because your body and mind's response to the choice is determined based on the influences that came before it. You have a choice, of course. However, whatever the outcome is, that's what it had to be, given the causes before it. You couldn't have picked chocolate.
Whatever neural processes you went through to reach vanilla were following specific rules, even if we're unaware of them. And to say you could have chosen either vanilla or chocolate is to say that you have the power to override the physical laws of the universe at a whim.
So it's "free" in the sense that you, and only you, made the decision. No one was holding a gun to your head telling you to pick one. It was entirely Tac's decision. But it was the only decision you could have made.
It should also be noted that there's quite a bit of evidence of just this phenomenon. We actually make decisions before we become aware of them. Our awareness of the decision is a response to the decision, not a precursor. So, we have testable evidence that shows us that choices we make are simply our bodies responding to stimuli. Conscious thought - what we generally perceive to be controlling our decisions - actually has little or nothing to do with it.
Make sense? Determinism is really the only logical view of the universe, imo. Even if unseen forces are affecting us, religious or otherwise, their influence would still need to be causal. Most religious concepts of free will are incoherent; unable to hold up to common sense, much less testing and physics.
Originally posted by TacDavey
You keep asserting this and I keep rejecting it. The difference is my rejections of this idea have been backed up. Yours have just been assertions.
Heh. Let's be clear, we're both stating opinions. One of us isn't factually correct. We're not dealing with an objectively measurable phenomenon, since we're dealing in the realm of human morality, suffering, freedom, etc.
With stealing and killing, it's not analogous to sex, and I'll explain why in a minute. But with stealing/killing, we probably just have to get rid of the words "right" and "wrong." Because, sure, the scenarios I provided are, in your words, necessary but not "right" in the sense that someone is still hurt. That's reasonable enough. Nobody wants to kill/steal if they can avoid it.
The point with sex is, sometimes, often times (again, with mature adults, not kids), no one is hurt. Even in the best cases of stealing, someone is hurt. but that's not the case with sex. Regardless of whether you think that they get hurt 1% of the time or 99%, you can't say it's the same thing. The potential for harm alone does not constitute right or wrong action, especially where none is intended, because the potential is there for literally anything we do.
Originally posted by Digi
It's not a concept most are brought up with, so we instinctively fight against it. let me try another example. Hopefully it helps.Say you're getting ice cream. You have two choices: chocolate and vanilla. For whatever reason, you pick vanilla. Now rewind the universe to 5 minutes before the choice of vanilla and play the scenario out again. You don't have knowledge of the choice you made on the first iteration.
What flavor will you choose in the second iteration? Vanilla. Run it again? Vanilla. Run it a thousand times. Vanilla. Why? Because your body and mind's response to the choice is determined based on the influences that came before it. You have a choice, of course. However, whatever the outcome is, that's what it had to be, given the causes before it. You couldn't have picked chocolate.
Whatever neural processes you went through to reach vanilla were following specific rules, even if we're unaware of them. And to say you could have chosen either vanilla or chocolate is to say that you have the power to override the physical laws of the universe at a whim.
So it's "free" in the sense that you, and only you, made the decision. No one was holding a gun to your head telling you to pick one. It was entirely Tac's decision. But it was the only decision you could have made.
It should also be noted that there's quite a bit of evidence of just this phenomenon. We actually make decisions before we become aware of them. Our awareness of the decision is a response to the decision, not a precursor. So, we have testable evidence that shows us that choices we make are simply our bodies responding to stimuli. Conscious thought - what we generally perceive to be controlling our decisions - actually has little or nothing to do with it.
Make sense? Determinism is really the only logical view of the universe, imo. Even if unseen forces are affecting us, religious or otherwise, their influence would still need to be causal. Most religious concepts of free will are incoherent; unable to hold up to common sense, much less testing and physics.
So you're saying that we are really nothing more than chemical reactions in our brains? We're just kind of running on a track like a train?
If we have no real control over our actions or thoughts, then isn't the person who thought up this idea just running on predetermined stimuli as well, and if this is the case, then how can you trust that the idea is valid? If the idea was born not from the thinker, but from stimuli that we have no real control over, how can you trust those stimuli to make a logically sound theory?
Originally posted by Digi
Heh. Let's be clear, we're both stating opinions. One of us isn't factually correct. We're not dealing with an objectively measurable phenomenon, since we're dealing in the realm of human morality, suffering, freedom, etc.With stealing and killing, it's not analogous to sex, and I'll explain why in a minute. But with stealing/killing, we probably just have to get rid of the words "right" and "wrong." Because, sure, the scenarios I provided are, in your words, necessary but not "right" in the sense that someone is still hurt. That's reasonable enough. Nobody wants to kill/steal if they can avoid it.
The point with sex is, sometimes, often times (again, with mature adults, not kids), no one is hurt. Even in the best cases of stealing, someone is hurt. but that's not the case with sex. Regardless of whether you think that they get hurt 1% of the time or 99%, you can't say it's the same thing. The potential for harm alone does not constitute right or wrong action, especially where none is intended, because the potential is there for literally anything we do.
I did admit that the potential for harm, by itself, is not justification for calling something wrong. In the same way, though, the potential for NO harm also does not constitute right or wrong actions, as again, an action that has a 9 out of 10 chance of harming children is not right, even though there is a 1 out of 10 chance no one get's hurt.
The degree to the potential for harm is relevant to determining if an action is right or wrong, and I have already provided my reasoning behind thinking premarital sex is more harmful than not.
Originally posted by TacDavey
If the idea was born not from the thinker, but from stimuli that we have no real control over, how can you trust those stimuli to make a logically sound theory?
The soundless of arguments is dependent on their content not their creator. You're probably the first person I've seen to make an ad hominem argument without hostility.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The soundless of arguments is dependent on their content not their creator. You're probably the first person I've seen to make an ad hominem argument without hostility.
I don't think I said otherwise. I was not claiming that the argument was invalid because of the person who made it, but because of how it was made.
Originally posted by TacDavey
So you're saying that we are really nothing more than chemical reactions in our brains? We're just kind of running on a track like a train?If we have no real control over our actions or thoughts, then isn't the person who thought up this idea just running on predetermined stimuli as well, and if this is the case, then how can you trust that the idea is valid? If the idea was born not from the thinker, but from stimuli that we have no real control over, how can you trust those stimuli to make a logically sound theory?
This critique has been worked on by people for a while now, with at least some modest success, though it does appear the scientists are the first to acknowledge the limitations of their work.
To be more specific, we know this because human behaviour is quite adequately explained by appealing only to physical processes of the brain. I would contend, the onus is on you to propose a type of behaviour that not only cannot currently be explained via physical mechanisms, but in fact, can never be explained by appealing to materialist understandings of human behaviour. Were you correct, it should be simple to point to human behaviours that are and will forever be impossible to describe by appealing to neuronal activity. Don't feel rushed, I''l wait.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't think I said otherwise. I was not claiming that the argument was invalid because of the person who made it, but because of how it was made.
ok, so your critique leaves 2 possible outcomes:
a) because the brain is deterministic and all truths are simply the result of such determinism, it is impossible to know anything as truth, therefore not only are scientific and materialist conclusions called into question, but so are all conclusions humans have ever come to, including those of philosophy and religion, making everything solipsistic and arguing against the ability of humans to ever know real truths.
b) because human behaviour isn't deterministic, we can trust scientists because they aren't simply deterministic.
for some reason, you try to set Digi up to answer a), when your position, b), is not even internally consistent and in fact argues against itself in this context.
This does nothing to refute the ridiculously fallacious assertion that something being deterministic has no ability, over time, to understand something that is deterministic. Modern theories of learning and memory being facilitated through long term potentiation in the hippocampus would be models of how this could occur. You are correct, all positions are biased based on previous experience, but given the universe isn't radically different at time A and B (so long as A and B are only differ in something like hundreds of thousands of years, and we don't include the first epochs of the universe), such a pattern seeking build up of contingent experiences with the environment almost necessitates at least some greater understanding of the universe at time B than A. and in terms of bias, what I said above applies; the more beings that have compiled a history of contingent learned relationships between things in the universe that agree on a theory about how things behave would be quite powerful evidence, unless there is a reason to believe perception is wrong in these instances (like optical illusions and the like).
Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't think I said otherwise. I was not claiming that the argument was invalid because of the person who made it, but because of how it was made.
No, its explicitly ad hominem.
Your argument is that we cannot trust "the stimuli" where you have already established "the stimuli" as standing for the thinker. You failed to address the quality of the argument itself.
Originally posted by inimalist
This critique has been worked on by people for a while now, with at least some modest success, though it does appear the scientists are the first to acknowledge the limitations of their work.To be more specific, we know this because human behaviour is quite adequately explained by appealing only to physical processes of the brain. I would contend, the onus is on you to propose a type of behaviour that not only cannot currently be explained via physical mechanisms, but in fact, can [b]never
be explained by appealing to materialist understandings of human behaviour. Were you correct, it should be simple to point to human behaviours that are and will forever be impossible to describe by appealing to neuronal activity. Don't feel rushed, I''l wait. [/B]
I don't think I need to do this in order for the point I was making before to be valid, though, as I wasn't actively arguing something outside of physical human brain activity, but rather pointing out a potential flaw in the Digi's original premise.
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, so your critique leaves 2 possible outcomes:a) because the brain is deterministic and all truths are simply the result of such determinism, it is impossible to know anything as truth, therefore not only are scientific and materialist conclusions called into question, but so are all conclusions humans have ever come to, including those of philosophy and religion, making everything solipsistic and arguing against the ability of humans to ever know real truths.
b) because human behaviour isn't deterministic, we can trust scientists because they aren't simply deterministic.
for some reason, you try to set Digi up to answer a), when your position, b), is not even internally consistent and in fact argues against itself in this context.
I wasn't arguing any position at the time. I was simply pointing out what I thought to be a flaw in the initial reasoning.
Originally posted by inimalist
This does nothing to refute the ridiculously fallacious assertion that something being deterministic has no ability, over time, to understand something that is deterministic. Modern theories of learning and memory being facilitated through long term potentiation in the hippocampus would be models of how this could occur. You are correct, all positions are biased based on previous experience, but given the universe isn't radically different at time A and B (so long as A and B are only differ in something like hundreds of thousands of years, and we don't include the first epochs of the universe), such a pattern seeking build up of contingent experiences with the environment almost necessitates at least some greater understanding of the universe at time B than A. and in terms of bias, what I said above applies; the more beings that have compiled a history of contingent learned relationships between things in the universe that agree on a theory about how things behave would be quite powerful evidence, unless there is a reason to believe perception is wrong in these instances (like optical illusions and the like).
This doesn't seem to solve the problem, though. Even if you build up knowledge about something that doesn't change the fact that you have no real control over what conclusions you draw from that knowledge or even how that knowledge is interpreted. In the end, you are still left with the fact that this idea is the result of forces that are outside of your control.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, its explicitly ad hominem.Your argument is that we cannot trust "the stimuli" where you have already established "the stimuli" as standing for the thinker. You failed to address the quality of the argument itself.
The problem I pointed out with the argument could be made with any other person as an example other than the thinker and still be valid. Make no mistake. I'm not saying the problem with the argument rests with the thinker. I'm saying there is a problem with the argument, and was using the thinker to illustrate and prove it.