Can Morality Be Objective Without God?

Author: MagicAintReal

Posts

Total: 438
#301
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TwoMan
Look, can we stick to people? Dogs only have what is defined as free will in the very loosest sense of the word and certainly do not make moral choices.
If I believe that humans have the ability to make choices and you say yes, but those choices are meaningless, that is an opinion. Are you able to scientifically quantify the meaning of choices?
We can stick to people, but if we do, you need to explain how a human's choice is quantitatively distinct from a dog's or an ape's choice.

You already mentioned that not all humans have free-will and furthermore that not every human decision involves or utilizes free-will.

If these propositions are true, then it begs the question of how we can tell, Number One, if someone has free-will and Number Two, if and when they actually use(d) it.

Because, without any way of determining these very important factors, it is essentially a rampant guessing game.

This is not a personal opinion.

This is logic.
#302
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Not being a dog, I can't answer how an animal's choice is different from a human's. Many animals are documented as using reason to achieve a goal.

An example of free will act : I choose to reply to your post on this thread.

An example of a non-free will act : I reflexively duck when I see a fouled baseball hurling at me.

Of course not all actions are as clear as those examples especially when intense emotion is involved.

And I still say that telling me what meaning (quaila) is applied to choices (quanta) is an opinion.
Topic's author
#303
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
Forum of the year??? Huh? So many posts.
#304
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@MagicAintReal
As soon as the subject of free will is mentioned, any thread will explode.
#305
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TwoMan
Of course not all actions are as clear as those examples especially when intense emotion is involved.
So, would you say, "self-reporting" is the primary way to determine if someone made a "free-will" choice?

And I still say that telling me what meaning (quaila) is applied to choices (quanta) is an opinion.
Right, I was speaking of the "logical definition" sense of "meaning", not the "personal opinion" sense of "meaning".

I'm merely pointing out that if you change the definition of "free-will" to apply to more than just humans, then you must also change the definition of "morality" accordingly.

Well, I guess that's only really true if you value logical coherence.
#306
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
So, would you say, "self-reporting" is the primary way to determine if someone made a "free-will" choice?
Yes, probably.

I'm merely pointing out that if you change the definition of "free-will" then you must also change the definition of "morality".
I disagree. It is not the definition so much as the existence of. If an action is made rationally (with thought), there may be moral consequences. If an action is made reflexively (without thought), there are none. The (current) definition of morality only changes when you say that free will does not exist.
#307
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Of course there is reality to freewill.

We certainly can perceive it. We experience it. Sure, we can find all sorts of ways to intellectually sweep it under the rug, but it is there.


You can always say that certain things and even variables unaccounted for led to a certain action. How can you argue against this? Likewise, how can you argue against the fact that we clearly have the ability to choose, as proven by our personal experience.


The point is, it is an absurd debate.


So what is beneficial? What is useful? What is good? At the very least, if nothing else can be controlled in an individual's life, they can at least choose to make peace with it or make war with it. It is better to make peace with it. Waring with it leads to suffering.


#308
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TwoMan
So, would you say, "self-reporting" is the primary way to determine if someone made a "free-will" choice?
Yes, probably.
Self-reporting is unreliable and unscientific.  Self-reporting is inconclusive.

We need a way of reliably determining the rational process of OTHER HUMANS in order to determine if they have and or use(d) free-will.

I'm merely pointing out that if you change the definition of "free-will" then you must also change the definition of "morality".
I disagree. It is not the definition so much as the existence of.
What do you mean "the existence of"?  Without a definition, and a reliable method of measuring it, the "existence" of something is indeterminable.

If an action is made rationally (with thought), there may be moral consequences. If an action is made reflexively (without thought), there are none. The (current) definition of morality only changes when you say that free will does not exist.
Generally speaking, crimes of passion and negligence do not require forethought in order for moral culpability to be presumed.

A dog is held responsible for their actions, a "bad dog" that attacks children is punished for its crimes (no free-will/no moral responsibility and yet we treat them exactly the same as if we presumed the dog had free-will).

The definition of morality is intrinsically linked to the definition of free-will.

If free-will applies to all creatures, then morality applies to all creatures.

If free-will only applies to competent adult humans, then morality only applies to competent adult humans.
#309
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
It's impossible to convince someone that free will doesn't exist if free will doesn't exist. All human actions follow from prior events and ultimately can be understood in terms of the movement of molecules.
#310
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL

Self-reporting is unreliable and unscientific.  Self-reporting is inconclusive.
And yet that is exactly how we determine guilt and innocence in many cases.
"Did you fear for your life?"
"Yes I did."
"Not guilty!"

If free-will applies to all creatures, then morality applies to all creatures.
As I said, the definition of free will only applies to animals in the very loosest sense of the word. So loose that it is nonsensical. I have not redefined free will. You are attempting to redefine the word "choice".

A lack of free will, in some cases, is self evident. There is no way, in some cases, to prove the existence of free will without self reporting. We have a system of justice to determine that very thing using all available evidence (including self reporting). If you want me to give you concrete non-anecdotal evidence for the existence of free will, I can't do that. Anecdotally, 7.5 billion people currently experience the phenomenon.
#311
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
It's impossible to convince someone that free will doesn't exist if free will doesn't exist. All human actions follow from prior events and ultimately can be understood in terms of the movement of molecules.
This is only true if being convinced is a choice. In what way is convincing someone not compelling them to believe something? In what way is being compelled to do something not an example of cause and effect? If cause and effect have explanatory power then anything more than cause and effect would need to be demonstrated.
#312
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TwoMan
As soon as the subject of free will is mentioned, any thread will explode.

Yes it is almost as if we are reacting rather than choosing.
#313
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes it is almost as if we are reacting rather than choosing.
That is possible. As I've said, not all actions are based on rational choices.

#314
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Ok so Gods , morality and free will.
Ummmmmmmmmmmm


Pass
#315
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TwoMan
What is the practical observable difference? How would freewill differ from the illusion of freewill?
#316
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
What is the practical observable difference? How would freewill differ from the illusion of freewill?

No difference from the user perspective, but there is a difference how it might work as a physical process.

#317
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Someone is 'compelled' to believe something based on the amount of evidence it has going for it. Our final conclusion on the matter isn't necessarily beyond our control. 

#318
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
Arguments against determinism:

- Appearance of free will

- Determinism is not rationally coherent

- mental causation 




#319
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
At a fork in the road cars go either to the left or the right, but cars do not manifest free will because their apparent choice to go one way or the other is directed by a biological parasite lodged inside it - ie the branch a car takes depends on the will of its driver, not the car's will.

but if cars don't have free will, do their drivers also have an inner-driver directing them?  i would say they don't, at least not one that stands in the same relation to as the one between driver and car because consciousness already resides the cars driver - another level is not needed to bring consciousness int the picture.

i might want to argue that the power a driver has to choose left or right (which is not a power a car has) is what people mean when they say 'free will'.



#320
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
A unicorn is defined according to its physical characteristics.
But unicorns can only be seen by "true believers".  No True Scotsman.  Unicorns are undetectable under normal circumstances.  The fact that you have never seen a unicorn only proves you are not a "true believer", it does not disprove the existence of unicorns.

Morality is not defined by physical characteristics. Morality is abstract. Empiricism works on tangible things, like unicorns, but not on abstract stuff, like morality.
Abstract concepts like "height" and "weight" and "mass" and "speed" all function perfectly well as EMPIRICALLY VERIFIABLE PHENOMENA.

Some abstract concepts are Quanta and some are Qualia.

Quanta are quantifiable, rigorously defined, scientifically verifiable phenomena (and emotionally meaningless).

Qualia are qualitative, experiential, broadly defined, personal opinions (and emotionally meaningful).

We don't need to prove moral realism.
By definition, things that are considered "real" are independently verifiable.  Anything that is not independently verifiable is imaginary (conceptual).

All we need to do is determine whether it's more rational than moral non-realism since one of the two must be true by law of excluded middle.
Simply by presenting mutually exclusive options does not necessarily mean one of them is "true". 

For example, (IFF) Vishnu is a god (THEN) Nanabozho is not a god.  (IFF) Nanabozho is a god (THEN) Vishnu is not a god.  Mutual exclusivity does not demand that one of these options is "true" and there is no way to determine if one option is "more rational" than the other.

Having a moral principle be "axiomatically true" better evidences moral realism than non-realism. 
This is demonstrably false.  Axioms prove nothing.  The statement, "Gurglantuabatory = eating a purple dinosaur + punching a sparrow + while riding a unicorn" is axiomatically true.

Moral realism is both intuitive and rational. They needn't be mutually exclusive. 
`Claiming something is intuitive does not demand evidence.  Intuition is personal and Qualitative. 

Virtually anything can be considered "intuitive".  A native from the jungles of Peru would say it is "intuitive" to track an animal who may have passed through several days earlier.  They might not be able to explain exactly how they know how to track the animal, but since they do it all the time, and learned it as a small child, it is second nature to them and properly "intuitive".  Claiming something is "intuitive" is exactly the same as saying "I know how to do it or what it is, but I am unable to explain it to you".  It is a naked appeal to ignorance.  I know Santa Claus is real intuitively and if you doubt me it is because you are a bad/mean/unimaginative/insincere/stupid/irrational/unreasonable person.

`Claiming something is rational does demand evidence.  Logic is rigorously defined and Quantitative and verifiable.

Some things can be both, but what is rational is not always intuitive and what is intuitive is not always rational.

These properties only have an incidental relationship.
#321
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
We would expect greater consensus on facts than on mere opinions. Rationality is not wholly subjective. Therefore, rationality is our independent epistemic standard. 
Please rigorously define what you personally mean by "rational".  You seem to have pre-loaded the term with "free-will" AND "intelligent design" axiomatically.

It appears you are fabricating unique and ad-hoc definitions.

The Standard Definition of "Rational" = "based on or in accordance with reason or logic" - https://www.google.com/search?q=Dictionary#dobs=rational

No, consensus has no effect on facts.
Finally, something we agree on.

If we all agree it's cold, it doesn't change that the temperature is 70. If we all agree it's hot, it doesn't change that temperature is still 70. Our natural reaction to 70 degree weather, however, will not consist of sweating or shivering. Our behavior indicates, but has no hand in determining, the actual temperature. 
The terms "cold" and "hot" are relative and Qualitative personal, and experiential.

The term "70 degrees" is a Quantitative, rigorously defined, and scientifically verifiable.

You are once again conflating Quanta with Qualia.

It is important to remember that - just because we can have a personal experience (Qualitative perception) of something quantifiable (like temperature), IT DOES NOT FOLLOW logically that EVERYTHING we have a personal experience of (moral intuition, god, dreams, unicorns) is necessarily directly correlated to something Quantifiable.

All I need to do is point out that there are rational differences between opposite moral conclusions.
Please do that by providing a list of moral axioms that are 100% true across all time and across all geographic regions and across all cultures and across all species.  And please avoid the "No True Scotsman" fallacy if you can.

You aren't irrational for preferring the taste of chocolate ice cream over vanilla or vice versa.
HOwever, it is very common to hear people declare that vegans, or people who eat crickets are categorically insane, stupid, or evil.

You are irrational, however, if you believe that cruelty must be morally good and that compassion must be morally wrong.
So, you're a big anti-torture advocate?  Do you actively support more humane treatment of prison inmates?

This shows that morality is embedded in rationality and rationality is not wholly subjective.
All you did was state an opinion and say the inverse was irrational.  This is a bald assertion.  No True Scotsman.  Anyone who fails to see your "moral intuition" (unicorn) is not a "true believer" (either irredeemably stupid, evil, or intellectually deaf and blind, or lying, insincere). 

Anyone who eats things that you don't like are dismissed as "idiots" or "savages".

If you automatically rush to disqualify everyone who disagrees with you, then you can never be "wrong".

Since rationality is not wholly subjective, therein lies our independent basis for arriving at the conclusion of the existence of moral facts.
Please confirm that "rationality" = LOGIC.

#322
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
You are bizarrely creating claims I didn't make and then attacking them.
#323
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
What is the practical observable difference? How would freewill differ from the illusion of freewill?
Keith's answer seems correct. You can ask that about almost anything. How would anything differ from the illusion of that thing? How does love differ from the illusion of love? How does rational thought differ from the illusion of rational thought? I don't see the utility in asking that question.
#324
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
You are bizarrely creating claims I didn't make and then attacking them.
Please be specific.

#325
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
Post #320, the first two sentences.

#326
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Post #320, the first two sentences.

A unicorn is defined according to its physical characteristics. Morality is not defined by physical characteristics. Morality is abstract. Empiricism works on tangible things, like unicorns, but not on abstract stuff, like morality.
Any other requests?
#327
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
In response you said:

"But unicorns can only be seen by 'true believers.'  No True Scotsman. ..."

I never once said or implied that unicorns can only be seen by "true believers." You then proceeded to attack the bizarre claim you created 




#328
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TwoMan
What is the practical observable difference? How would freewill differ from the illusion of freewill?
Keith's answer seems correct. You can ask that about almost any [Qualitative] thing. How would any [Qualitative] thing differ from the illusion of that thing? How does love [Qualitative] differ from the illusion of love? How does rational thought [Qualitative] differ from the illusion of rational thought [like artificial intelligence]? I don't see the utility in asking that question [specifically about Qualitative concepts].
How does speed differ from the illusion of speed?  Well, speed can be Quantified scientifically.  The illusion of speed is merely opinion based.

How does weight differ from the illusion of weight?  Well, weight can be Quantified scientifically.  The illusion of weight is merely opinion based.

I'm sure you get the idea.

How do we determine reality from illusion? 

Try using The Scientific Method.

If something falls outside of the scope of science, it is indistinguishable from pure imagination.

If free-will is not Quantifiable, it is not necessarily false on that basis alone, however it is indistinguishable from an illusion of free-will on that basis.

My contention does not rely on this "illusion" argument.  My contention is that free-will is logically incoherent and therefore cannot exist as anything other than an illusion (a feeling or personal experience, Qualitative).
#329
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
In response you said:
"But unicorns can only be seen by 'true believers.'  No True Scotsman. ..."
I never once said or implied that unicorns can only be seen by "true believers." You then proceeded to attack the bizarre claim you created 
I disagreed with you that unicorns are defined as purely physical.

I then proceeded to use the unicorn example to highlight the fallacies inherent in your proposed "moral intuition".

Please let me know if you require further clarification.
#330
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
So you were pointing out the logical fallaciousness of your counter-argument?