Tell me what you believe.

Author: Wrick-It-Ralph

Posts

Total: 353
Topic's author
#301
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin

Well there is definitely a difference in intensity but isn't lokeing the color red also (albeit a less visceral) feeling? Am I missing something?
No a feeling is a mental disposition your have about something.  Color is a sensation.  People call senses "feelings"  but it's not the same feelings as your opinion about something.  Opinion aren't sensations. 

Ok I actually meant that if people can come to different moral conclusions based on the same information (or biological cue) then it is likely subjective
I can show that's false.  People could disagree on objective things.  That just means there opinion isn't objective anymore. 

Some one could state "2 + 2 doesn't equal four" maybe because their parents taught them math wrong or they just don't believe it for whatever reason.  Even though that person disagrees, it doesn't change the fact this is true.  

More complex example.  People come to different conclusions about the earth being round, doesn't that make it subjective?  

The point isn't that they follow the cues.  The point is that the cues make us want to follow them so we gravitate toward that behavior naturally.  So people "tend" to follow the cue and this is what we see in societies.  The part where morals gets involved is after this.  People made up the word "moral" to judge right and wrong.  Just like any other word, we can trace back it's usage to see what people mean when they say it.  When we do this, it generally comes back to group survival of some kind.  Even the loose morals in holy books show some group survival, albeit from primitive times.  That's why I think it makes the best standard. 

Morals are our judgements
No.  If that was true, we wouldn't call them "moral judgements'  The moral isn't the judgement, it's the standard of your judgement.  That's a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.  ALL judgements are subjective and if the judgement also meets the standard, then it's subjective and objective at the same time.  The goes for any adjective in speech. when you say something is "moral" that's an adjective and based off the two components of a judgement and a standard.  So hot, cold, tall, short.   Those are all objective assuming they use objective standards.  Things like happy, sad, beautiful, etc.  Those things have subjective standards, so they objectively true, but only insofar as it's true that it's your opinion. 



Topic's author
#302
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Ants have a similar biological disposition but I do not consider them moral agents. Do you consider ants moral agents?

I would say that ants have their own morality based off their biological cues. My morals aren't really about right and wrong, but rather about what drives us to do what we think is right and wrong.  For most organisms, it's generally group survival. 



Topic's author
#303
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
If you look at insect morality, it actually makes sense.  insects have short lives and small brains, so they don't need a complex moral system like we do.  A morally good life for an ant is getting to be alive long enough to help the colony and maybe eat some food and get laid.  
#304
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
After hitting the send key I decided that I was dissatisfied with the post that you are responding to in post 301. It would be silly to ask you to forget about it but please understand that I wish I had not sent it so hastily and that my other posts are mire in line with my intended communique.
Topic's author
#305
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
no problem.  It happens.  
#306
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
morality based off their biological cues
Well is the biological cue the moral or is the moral just based on the cue? This seems like a pretty important distinction.
Topic's author
#307
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
this is the best way I can put it.  The cue is the reason that we have morals.  The morals are tenants that were initially drawn subjectively due to the fact that it's hard to resist cues.  Then as a society we got smarter and we were able to conceptualize what the cues were telling us and we started making morals off them.  So you could call is subjective, but the thing we used to make the morals was objective.  Those morals act as a priority list and when we're in a situation, we try to subjectively sort those morals out to make moral judgements.   The thing to note here is that we technically did invent the concept of a moral, but there part where I feel there's objectivity is where we did "moral" things before we knew what a moral was.  So I guess my argument boils down to the origin of the word itself. 


#308
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
The thing to note here is that we technically did invent the concept of a moral, but there part where I feel there's objectivity is where we did "moral" things before we knew what a moral was.  So I guess my argument boils down to the origin of the word itself. 
Spiritual is likened to moral as Ive suggested previously.

Spiritual as  two or more, ex self { * i * } and ecological environment { ** @ ** } that sustains self.

Experience { occupied space } precedes access to thoughts { metaphysical-1 }  No experience { occupied space } then no access to thoughts { metaphysical-1 }.



#309
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I can agree with this statement.

That humans would seem to have a biological tendency that compelled them to create morals appears to be an objective fact.

I'm not sure that the morals we invented would necessarily then be objective but there may be no way to be certain given our epistemology. For myself my opinion about morals is in total synchronous agreement with my morals and it is difficult to separate the one from the other but I have occasionally disagreed with that sick feeling in my gut  (when my actions would be detrimental to me or my loved ones but reflected the greater common good example telling the truth when I knew it would bring punishment) so I have a frame of reference for them being something separate from my morality. That however is anecdotal and I cannot demonstrate the truth of my "feelings" to you. That is part of the problem with discussing "feelings" they cannot be externally falsified.
Topic's author
#310
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
To your third statement

The morals we make would always be subjective, but literally anything we believe is subjective but can also be simultaneously objective.  It's just like you said.  "we can pick something and make an objective standard for it"  So the question of whether the thing you pick is subjective or objective doesn't change the fact that the standard itself is objective.  You even pick the harm/benefit standard like I do.  So essentially we have close to the same moral code.  I'm just adding in the observation or moral tendencies seem to come from evolution.  


Feelings themselves can't be externally falsified (other than hooking yourself to a brain scan).  However, any judgement you make based on feelings can be falsified because we can compare it to people who didn't use those same feelings to see if you used your feelings or not.  That's how science generally finds objectivity within anecdotal claims.  Although the truths you get from this method aren't as fruitful as they are in logic. 

I would just say that your "moral feelings" are just the way you feel about morality.  ultimately morality is just a concept with a goal in mind.  people might have different opinions about the goal, but the goal seems to be the same for everybody.  
Topic's author
#311
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I just realized we're arguing over hume's gillotene. 

ultimately, I'll have to agree there's a subjective element although I'm okay with.  I still believe there's something objective driving us even if we ultimately do it for subjective reasons. 

Topic's author
#312
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I think that puts us at a resolution. :) 
Topic's author
#313
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin


This appears to be what I'm arguing for. 
#314
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
there's something objective driving us
The same thing drives us to make and observe morals that drives us to form and express opinions when you get right down to it and that is the chemical and electrical activity in your brain. This activity is not subject to your opinions your opinions are subject to it. So in a way you opinions are not subject to your opinions but that renders the meaning of the words opinion and subjective nonsensical.

I do not choose my opinions, my beliefs or my morals they are a product of my environment and biology.
Topic's author
#315
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
That's a part of the whole fallacy.  


Yes, technically it's all our brains, but that doesn't mean it's the same part of the brain.  If we're just going to say "it's all the brain" then talking about any kind of knowledge at all is vacuous.  


While they may both be biological processes, opinions are not the same as cues.  

Opinions relate directly to active thought and our ability to make choices.  We can actively think and dwell upon an opinion and change it. 


While we can dwell on our cues, nothing we think about them will ever change them. 


#316
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
While we can dwell on our cues, nothing we think about them will ever change them. 
This is something that I must consider. I had not really thought about it.
Opinions relate directly to active thought and our ability to make choices.
I do not believe in freewill. I'm not sure you could ever "choose" differently than you do and if so I'm not sure how to demonstrate it.
Topic's author
#317
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
First point. 

duly noted

Second point. 

You're talking about determinism.  So while it's true that you can't change your decision.  It's a vacuous truth.  Even if we did have free will, we still could never make more than one decision.  will simply speaks to desires.  We have desires, so we have will.  the free part is where the contentious lies.  If free means no impositions, then sometimes yes and sometimes no, if free means as much freedom as the situation allows, then probably yes.  If free means not being mind controlled, then probably yes.  If free means literally whatever you want, then no. 



#318
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
People make decisions first and foremost based on their preferences and secondarily based on the circumstances in which they find themselves. Since neither if these factors is under our direct control claiming to have control of our actions is logically incoherent. This does not make it impossible, the universe is under no special obligation to make sense to me, but without some sufficient evidence of freewill I have no choice but to remain skeptical.
Topic's author
#319
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I think it's the other way around. Situation, then preference.  I can give an example. 

The situation is bad, so I prefer to change. 

The situation is good, so I prefer it to stay the same. 



I can also prove that these things are in fact in our control at lease some of the time. 

My preference itself is not necessarily in my control, although I can't say for sure that it's not in my control.  What is in my control is what I do about my preference and how I achieve that action.  Here's an example.

I prefer turkey over beef, but I have no turkey, so I eat the beef.  (Couldn't have my preference, so I chose to forego it for now for a lesser preference)

I prefer turkey over beef, but I have no turkey, so I drive to the store for turkey  (Couldn't have my preference, so I chose to change my circumstances)

I prefer turkey over beef, but my wife won't let me eat turkeys, so I've learned to develop a taste for beef (Couldn't have my preference while maintain my preference for being married, so I chose to only eat beef, which I eventually change my preference for)

So I have examples of control my outcomes at least to some extent.  If you want to say that's not free will, then cool, but I would then say we're not talking about the same word anymore.


 
#320
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
You have used the word couldn't several times. This implies that the circumstances are not in fact under your control. Couldn't have my preference (or at least not all my preferences) so I did the second most preferential thing. This does not require freewill only the ability to evaluate your alternatives.
Topic's author
#321
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
It implies that ONE circumstance was out of control.  It also implies that I could change my circumstances (driving to the store) to meet my desire.  It also showed that I could ignore my desire.  Those are choices.  I made those choices and that's really all I need to know.  I don't really care if it's called free will or not and I think that term is loaded anyway.  I would rather just call it will because the free part doesn't really do anything.  Who cares if it's free?  Can I make a choice?  Then it's will. 




#322
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Can I make a choice?  Then it's will. 
You can make a determination. In any case this may be as close to agreement as we can get on this issue.

#323
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
There should be a new term comparable to Godwin's law that states that every internet thread will eventually devolve into a discussion of "free will".
Topic's author
#324
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@TwoMan
indeed
Topic's author
#325
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
agreed 
#326
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@secularmerlin
People make decisions first and foremost based on their preferences and secondarily based on the circumstances in which they find themselves. Since neither if these factors is under our direct control claiming to have control of our actions is logically incoherent.
Free wll has nothing to do with control of our actions. I may have the free will to flap my arms and fly but that doesn't mean the laws of physics are going to change simply because of my free will to do so. Having the will to do something does not mean having the means.

#327
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Goldtop
I simply see no difference between the physics that determine our ability to fly and the physics that determine our ability to "choose".
Topic's author
#328
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
You say determines like physics has a mind.  Physics doesn't determine our actions, it limits our choices.  In fact, we're the ones who control physics.  I can harness physics for energy and food and all of my other desires.   


It's not that determinism is false per se.  It's that it's vacuous.  It's the logical equivalent of saying "what will happen will happen." 


A question. 


Since we can't go back in time, who do we KNOW that we couldn't have made a different decision? 


Furthermore, does it matter if we couldn't?  The fact is that we definitely had a choice in the moment and that's all that counts.  That's why I think it's better to call it "will" rather than "free will".  The "free" part is the true falsehood.  Because free implies that we have no limitations.  Obviously, physics limits us.  But that doesn't change the fact that we have will.  

Also, you do realize that these types of words are meant to describe humans and that makes them try by virtue of our existence, right? 
#329
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Physics determines our actions in the way that the shape of the river bank determines the course of the water. I don't mean to imply agency.

As to proving we couldn't chiose differently that is like trying to prove that no god(s) exist. Freewill is un-falsifiable and I am unsure how to demonstrate it. I personally cannot maintain a belief in the absence of sufficient evidence or demonstration. We do however have agency (will as you put it) and that does clearly create a marked difference in behavior from say a rock or a photon. Of course I have no way of proving thay a rock or a photon do not have free will. The best I can say is that their behavior is not indicative of agency.
Topic's author
#330
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't care about free will.  It's just a mystical term.  I care about will.  Will exist.  The free descriptor is just a misnomer.