Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)

Would something hypothetical not be useless?

The purpose of the hypothetical demon (Laplace's Demon) is to demonstrate (explain) determinism.

So, everything can be predicted by gods?  :wink:

So, everything can be predicted by gods?  :wink:

Anything smart and powerful enough.

So, this determinism, is it not unlike saying the universe itself has a will?  Like the Force?

So, this determinism, is it not unlike saying the universe itself has a will?  Like the Force?

No, no, absolutely not. It's just saying that causes have effects, and effects have causes.

Eh.  Ok.  Point being?  Why is this nine pages long?

Eh.  Ok.  Point being?  Why is this nine pages long?

One of the consequences is that we humans do not really have choices or free will, and naturally people don't want to accept this.

Well then if they don't have free will then obviously it isn't their fault they can't accept it.

Well then if they don't have free will then obviously it isn't their fault they can't accept it.

It's not my fault I razz on them for not accepting it, either.

Well then if they don't have free will then obviously it isn't their fault they can't accept it.

Haha great point dude.

Quote from: "cadmium_blimp"

Well then if they don't have free will then obviously it isn't their fault they can't accept it.

Haha great point dude.

It's not very well thought out.

And (I think it's already been brought up) it's not my fault if I rape some girl walking down the street.

And (I think it's already been brought up) it's not my fault if I rape some girl walking down the street.

It's not my fault for ripping you to shreds with razor wire as punishment either.

Then it's not the fault of our families when a bloodfeud ensues.

Then it's not the fault of our families when a bloodfeud ensues.

Haven't you realized that determinism doesn't affect morality in the slightest?

Once we've realized that nothing is anybody's fault, we might as well redefine "fault" so that we can have useful conversations again.

For example, maybe we can say that X is Y's fault if in a unverse totally identical to ours except that sentient beings in it have free will, X would have been Y's fault.

We can define "bad" and "good" and "right" and "wrong" using a similar strategy, and then get back to living our lives, having demonstrated to everybody's satisfaction that this discussion is of no practical use.

Well I think those words:

Good, Bad, Right, Wrong, Fault etc.

are words that are based entirely on perception and are essentially human constructs rather than having intrinsic value.

Well I think those words: Good, Bad, Right, Wrong, Fault etc. are words that are based entirely on perception and are essentially human constructs rather than having intrinsic value.

Well, okay, but... so?  While valueless in some sort of... other universe, they're useful in the real world that we live in.  My point is that it's nice to discuss ethics in the abstract but the goal of ethics should be to tell us how to behave in the real world.  Ethics is supposed to be practical, and statements like "Good, bad, right, wrong, etc. are based on perception and have no intrinsic value" are not only useless, they are in fact destructive in that they make any practical discussion of ethics untenable.

hmm, you make a good point.  Personally I find it impossible to justify my moral beliefs.  I have very strong beliefs about what is right and wrong but I am completely incapable of forming an solid arguement as to why that is.

I guess you could call me an ethical nihilist.

Personally I find it impossible to justify my moral beliefs.  I have very strong beliefs about what is right and wrong but I am completely incapable of forming an solid arguement as to why that is.

Maybe you're setting too high standards on what counts as justification; perhaps you feel that you should be able to derive your ethical beliefs from some set of axioms, but since there cannot be axioms, you're stuck.

I would suggest you just consider that the point of ethics is to allow societies to function and grow and go from there.

Yeah well a large part of my ethics are based on that idea - it's just that I can't justify the step to deciding that we should do what's good for society because I don't really believe in "good".

You are right though, apart from the fact that I don't think my standards are too high - just that my high expectations are what cause the problem - that doesn't mean having high expectations is bad - in fact I'm sure you can see how a lack of belief in "good" and "bad" makes it impossible to really get anywhere.  But I don't think we should believe in things because they make us feel better, we should believe in things because we think they are correct and true and sometimes the truth is not something that is "good" for us.

Essentially what I do is just try my best to avoid trying to connect my universal philosophy with my ethical philosophy

I don't really believe in "good".

Interesting... why not?

Well "good" obviously exists within certain contexts.

For example if I want to win the 100 m sprint at the Olympics and in training I run a time of 9.80 then in the context of my goal, this is a good time.

However based on the theory of evolution and our understanding of physics - it is clear that the reason things happen is because of the basic rules of physics and the reactions between particles.  Even if we look at things from an evolutionary point of view the reason we exist is simply because if we didn't reproduce we wouldn't exist.  Evolution does not have a goal and life does not have a goal - it just is.  As I've stated else where I'm determinalistic in that I believe that what happens in the world is determined by the rules of physics and how things interact.

Things can only be good within a context - there has to be a goal or purpose for something to be good - but physics and evolution fairly clearly show that things don't happen as a result of trying to achieve a goal or purpose but just as a reaction to the events leading up to the event.  Therefore "good" cannot exist because there is no context or purpose for it to exist in.

Well said, beast.

Well "good" obviously exists within certain contexts.

For example if I want to win the 100 m sprint at the Olympics and in training I run a time of 9.80 then in the context of my goal, this is a good time.

However based on the theory of evolution and our understanding of physics - it is clear that the reason things happen is because of the basic rules of physics and the reactions between particles.  Even if we look at things from an evolutionary point of view the reason we exist is simply because if we didn't reproduce we wouldn't exist.  Evolution does not have a goal and life does not have a goal - it just is.  As I've stated else where I'm determinalistic in that I believe that what happens in the world is determined by the rules of physics and how things interact.

Things can only be good within a context - there has to be a goal or purpose for something to be good - but physics and evolution fairly clearly show that things don't happen as a result of trying to achieve a goal or purpose but just as a reaction to the events leading up to the event.  Therefore "good" cannot exist because there is no context or purpose for it to exist in.

If we live our lives in a relativistic manner to everyone else, our humanity ceases to exist.  The reason we are different from anything else we have thus encountered is that we live our lives in another world; another plane of existance if you so want.  The human world; the world of abstract thought, creativity, advanced communication, mathematics, reason, religion.

Whether its sacred, mystical, or simply a product of our advanced brains, it still separates us from other organisms.

Whether its sacred, mystical, or simply a product of our advanced brains, it still separates us from other organisms.

Other animals have a sense of "good."

Quote from: "Mephistopheles"

Whether its sacred, mystical, or simply a product of our advanced brains, it still separates us from other organisms.

Other animals have a sense of "good."

Preposterous.

Quote from: "Ubuntu"

Quote from: "Mephistopheles"

Whether its sacred, mystical, or simply a product of our advanced brains, it still separates us from other organisms.

Other animals have a sense of "good."

Preposterous.

Sorry, but you're wrong there. Several primates have fairly advanced concepts of altruism, which (as if I didn't pimp this book enough) is explained  excellently in evolutionary terms in Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene.

Sorry, but you're wrong there. Several primates have fairly advanced concepts of altruism, which (as if I didn't pimp this book enough) is explained  excellently in evolutionary terms in Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene.

Primates may be animals, but not all animals are primates.  Even so, assuming Richard Dawkins has valid points, this is only one aspect.

But what is good?

Can something be intrinsically good or is "good" just based on our perspective.

While I'm sure we all like to think that our own opinions are correct and those who disagree are wrong, how can we say that this is the case?  Obviously in some instances somebody can be wrong and somebody else can be right in the context of a particular arguement but there are plenty of cases where that is not the case.

Personally I think anchovies on pizza is a "good" thing.  Plenty of other people think that it is a "bad" thing.  What's the truth?  If "good" has intrinsic value then surely one of is right?  In terms of physical value clearly anchovies (and indeed all fish) is very healthy and is "good" for my body but I feel, as many do, that it's really the taste of the anchovie that is what is being questioned.  My taste says that anchovie tastes "good" and so for me anchovies on pizza is "good".  Other peoples tastes tell them that anchovies taste "bad" and so anchovies on pizza is bad.  It seems clear that our tastes are not conscious decisions.  I don't decide that I am going to like or dislike something before I try it.  Sometimes I will think I will like or dislike something before trying it, but if I still try it then how my taste buds tell it tastes is presumably not influenced by my brain at all.

Therefor when I say that anchovies on pizza is "good" and other people say it is "bad" we are both right relative to our own tastes.  There is no correct answer.


Now this example is good because I presume people don't feel too strongly about it.  You may prefer to have fun in a pool of acid before eating anchovies on pizza but you respect the fact that other people enjoy anchovies and you aren't going to start campaiging for them to stop (unless you're also a member of PETA).

But lets apply the same thing to something a little more controversial.

In our society with our morals today we feel very strongly that human life is sacred and that it is wrong for people to fly planes into buildings killing thousands of innocent people for their own cause.  I would hope that everybody on this forum agrees that that action would be "bad" and "wrong".  You could say that for our society this is an intrinsic value.  However there are clearly people in the world who disagree with this.  There are clearly people who think that this action is "good".

We think we're right, they think they're right.

If intrinsic values really exist there would be a right answer to this question but because of our bias, even if this were the case, it would be probably be impossible for us to decide.  We can never know if their specific beliefs in God (Allah) are correct or not.  If we don't know if their beliefs are correct we can't know if their actions are "good" or not.  All we can base our own morals on is our own perspective.  We can't actually know if we are right or not and we should take this into account with our own morals.

They think it is "good" to kill us and if that is true then they're doing the "right" thing.  But if they're wrong and they kill us, not only are they doing a bad thing but they're doing a bad thing that can never be undone.  If they choose not to kill us now, they can always change their mind later, when they have more information.  

I believe anchovies on pizza is good and so I eat them, but if I made everybody else eat them as well and it turned out I was wrong, I wouldn't just be doing the wrong thing in eating them myself, I would be doing the wrong thing by making everybody else wrong.  If instead I respect the fact that other people might be right and I might be wrong (unlikely but possible) then I'm only being responsible for myself.  If I'm wrong I'm the only person who will face the consequences of being wrong.